1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 26, 2011, the Plaintiff operated the said gas station with the trade name “C gas station” located in Chungcheongnam-gun B from the Defendant.

B. On January 8, 2016, the Daejeon Chungcheong Headquarters inspected the fixed quantity sale of alcoholic beverages installed in D vehicles for mobile selling vehicles located in the said gas station (hereinafter “instant alcoholic beverage”). The instant alcoholic beverage was inspected as the first -1.5% (1.5 liter) and second -1.1% (1 liter) beyond the permissible limit of the use of the relevant alcoholic beverage.

C. On February 29, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff.

The grounds for the disposition that sold below the net quantity through the inspection as referred to in Paragraph (d) are not intentional or gross negligence, but imposes a penalty surcharge of KRW 20,000,000, which was reduced by 1/2,000 (the above disposition was changed to a penalty surcharge of KRW 5,00,000 by the ruling as referred to in Paragraph (d) below. Such changed disposition was made (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, and on June 20, 2016, from the Chungcheongnam-do Administrative Appeals Commission, there is not a general reason to deem that it is possible for the Plaintiff to believe only the term of validity of sealing of the Korea Institute of Mechanical and Electronic Testing, without considering the mechanical defect of the mobile-sale vehicle or the lack of performance, and that the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition to change the said penalty surcharge from KRW 5,000,000, in consideration of the fact that the seals were not damaged at the time of inspection by the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office after the instant disposition, and that the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition to change the said penalty surcharge from KRW 5,00,000 on the grounds that it cannot be confirmed that the Plaintiff intentionally fabricated the mobile-sale vehicle, and that there was no proof

E. Meanwhile, from the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office on March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff did not have sealed the above violation at the time of inspection by the Korea Petroleum Quality Management Agency, and the Korea Machinery Electronic Test once every two years.