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 the petroleum retail business under the trade name called “C gas station” in the principal city B (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On April 6, 2018, the Gangwon Institute: (a) collected samples of automobile gasoline 1 at the gas station in the instant case; (b) conducted quality inspections; and (c) determined that the said gasoline contains approximately 5% of other petroleum products (motor vehicle transit, etc.) and constitutes fake petroleum products.

C. On June 19, 2018, the Defendant sold fake petroleum products in violation of Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the foregoing inspection.

On July 24, 2018, the Gangwon Institute: (a) collected samples of automobile gasoline 1 (hereinafter “instant petroleum products”); (b) conducted quality inspections at the gas station in the instant case; and (c) determined that “this case’s petroleum products fall under the category of fake petroleum products in which other petroleum products (motor vehicle transit) fall under a small quantities of fake petroleum products, which exceeds the normal range (not less than 91 but less than 94).”

E. The defendant D.

On October 5, 2018, according to the result of the inspection of the paragraph, the Plaintiff issued a disposition for the suspension of business for 45 days (the suspension period: October 22, 2018 to December 5, 2018; hereafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) and the publication of the matter of violation of law, stating that “It is reasonable to suspend business since the Plaintiff committed the same violation within the preceding one year, and again sold fake petroleum products in violation of Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act, but taking into account the degree of disadvantage that may be received due to the suspension of business.”

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there is no ground for disposition 1 is in the gas station of this case.