beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) registered a petroleum retail business (gas station) with the Defendant; and (b) engages in petroleum retail business with the trade name called “C gas station” (hereinafter “instant gas station”).
B. On March 17, 2017, the Daegu Gyeongbuk Headquarters discovered, as a result of the quality inspection of petroleum products with respect to the gas stations in the instant case, that the storage tank storing light oil (hereinafter “instant storage tank”) contains approximately 35% of light oil for automobiles in storage tanks.
C. On April 25, 2017, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million in lieu of the suspension of business for three months pursuant to Article 29(1)1 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 14774, Apr. 18, 2017; hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”), Article 13(3)8 of the same Act, and Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant violation is a mixed oil accident caused by mixing the instant storage tank, which is composed of light oil remaining on a mobile-sale vehicle with light oil. The Plaintiff did not manufacture fake petroleum products, but did not have the intention to manufacture fake petroleum products. 2) The Plaintiff did not have intention to manufacture fake petroleum products in the storage tank of this case, the Plaintiff did not intend to manufacture fake petroleum products, the fact that the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution disposition that the Plaintiff was not suspected of having no suspicion, and the fact that there was no record of violating the Petroleum Business Act during that period.