beta
Text
1. Defendant Port Market Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Port”) committed against Plaintiff A on March 4, 2013, with a penalty surcharge of KRW 10 million, and Plaintiff Daesung Industrial Co., Ltd.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Plaintiff A1) completed the registration of a petroleum retail business (gas station) on January 7, 2008, and around that time, Plaintiff A runs a petroleum retail business in the name of F station in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-si. 2) On December 6, 2012, Plaintiff A’s main fishery of the Institute, as a result of the inspection of Plaintiff A’s main fishery from December 6, 2012, Plaintiff A’s main fishery (water No. E10525) out of the Plaintiff’s 1st (water No. E10525) out of the Plaintiff’s 1st (water No. Ma100525), the 150mm (4 times of measurement: 170ml, 170ml, 160ml, 170ml, 170mml) and notified Defendant Port Mayor of this fact.
3) On March 4, 2013, Defendant Port Mayor: (a) against the Plaintiff on March 4, 2013, the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).
(2) Article 14 of the Petroleum Business Act and the Enforcement Rule of the former Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 1, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff sold petroleum and alternative fuel to less than the net quantity, which is stipulated in Article 39(1)2.
(4) In accordance with Article 16 related [Attachment 2], the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeongbukdo Administrative Appeals Commission. The Gyeongbukdo Administrative Appeals Commission made a decision to reduce the penalty surcharge on April 29, 2013 by taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s act of selling less than the fixed quantity is clearly recognized, but the Plaintiff’s act of selling under the fixed quantity was committed without any intention to intentionally modify or manipulate the alcoholic beverage, and the Plaintiff’s act of selling under the fixed quantity is deemed to be insignificant because the user’s car does not deviate from the permissible tolerance, and thus the degree of the violation is deemed to be insignificant, thereby making it a decision to change the penalty surcharge of KRW 10 million.
B. Plaintiff Daesung Industrial Co., Ltd. 1) Plaintiff Daesung Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Daesung Industrial”).