1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is running a petroleum retail business with the trade name called “C gas station” (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On May 23, 2016, the 2nd Inspection Team of the Seoul Southern Headquarters of the Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Agency (hereinafter “Korea Institute”) confirmed, as a result of the testing of samples collected at the gas station in the instant case, that there was approximately 10% of other petroleum products, such as automobile light oil, etc., and determined the said petroleum products as fake petroleum products under Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”), and notified the Defendant thereof.

C. The Plaintiff knew of this and raised an objection to the result of the quality inspection to the Defendant, and the Defendant requested a re-inspection to the Korea Institute on June 3, 2016, and the Korea-U.S. Seoul Metropolitan Government Headquarters notified the Defendant that the petroleum products No. 20 of the sample number 20 are fake petroleum products as the result of the re-inspection.

Accordingly, on July 29, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act after prior notice prior to the disposition and submission of written opinions.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on November 30, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1 through 8 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no intention to cause confusion between the Plaintiff’s vehicle transit and indoor oil for profit, and that the employee of the gas station may have been mixed in the process of putting the remaining residues from the oil tank for delivery back to the tank.

However, even so, the Plaintiff’s transit from No. 5 of the gas station of this case to the diesel tank No. 3 to the diesel tank.