Park Jong-sik (Attorney Kim Chang-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The Governor of Gangwon-do or the head of Yeongdeungpo Fire Station;

1. On November 9, 1987, the disposition of revocation of permission for petroleum retail business for the plaintiff on the same day by the court of Gangwon-do, and the disposition of revocation of permission for the installation of the hazardous materials storage handling place by the chief of Yeongdeungpo-gu against the plaintiff on the same day.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) In the event that: (a) the Plaintiff violated the standards for permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 1; (b) the permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 1; (c) the permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 2; (d) the Plaintiff violated the standards for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 8; (d) the standards for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 1; and (e) the standards for revocation of permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 2; and (e) the standards for revocation of permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 3; (e) the Plaintiff violated the standards for revocation of permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 8; and (e) the standards for revocation of permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 1; (e) the standard for revocation of permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 7; and (e) the standard for revocation of permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 1; and (e) the standard for revocation of permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 2; and (e) the Plaintiff violated the standards for revocation of permission for storage of hazardous substances under subparagraph 17.

The plaintiff did not purchase or sell similar gasoline. However, the non-party company supplied the plaintiff's above gas station with gasoline, light oil and oil to the above gas station, which is located in Gangnam-si. The non-party company asserted that the above non-party company's disposition was legitimate because it supplied the above petroleum products to various gas stations that it traded. Although it was allowed to load the same kind of petroleum products as gasoline, light oil and others to transport the same kind of petroleum products to the same tank (tank) tank in order to eliminate the possibility of mixing with other kinds of petroleum products, the non-party company's disposition was not unlawful because it loaded different kinds of petroleum products in the oil tank to reduce transportation costs and transported them at one time with different kinds of petroleum products on the ground that it violated the above disposition of revocation of permission for the above trading tank. The non-party company supplied the above non-party company's petroleum products to the above non-party gas station with different kinds of petroleum products on the ground that the above disposition of revocation of permission for the non-party company's use of oil without any justifiable ground for mixing with the plaintiff's above.

First, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to look at the legitimacy of the disposition of the Plaintiff’s permission for the instant petroleum selling business, Article 22(2) of the Petroleum Business Act provides that “No person shall knowingly manufacture or sell pseudo petroleum products for the purpose of selling them, or store, load, or transport them with the knowledge that it is for the purpose of selling other petroleum products.” Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “ pseudo petroleum products under Article 22(2) of the Act shall be used as fuel for gasoline-resistant institutions regardless of their name,” and Article 13 subparag. 6 of the same Act provides that if the Plaintiff violated the provisions of Article 22(2) of the same Act, the Plaintiff’s permission for the instant petroleum selling business, even though it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use the pseudo petroleum products for testing or analysis of similar petroleum products for the purpose of selling them, it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff violated the provisions of Article 22(2) of the same Act without any subjective reason for the removal or sale of similar petroleum products.”

Then, Article 23 subparagraph 5 of the Fire Services Act provides that the permission authority may revoke the permission or order the suspension of the use of the dangerous goods handling facility when the installer of the dangerous goods handling facility violates the conditions of permission. On the other hand, in the permission to install the above dangerous goods handling facility to the plaintiff, the first chief of the fire station belonging to the defendant shall be a sale oil storage, but the purpose of the establishment shall be the sale oil storage, and when the plaintiff violates the purpose of the establishment, the condition that the permission shall be revoked is attached. However, as seen above, the health stand as to whether the cancellation condition is fulfilled due to the plaintiff's violation of the purpose of establishment of the above dangerous goods handling facility, so long as the revocation disposition of permission by the Gangwon-do Governor of Gangwon-do should be revoked illegally, the above dangerous goods handling facility by the plaintiff's violation of its purpose of establishment is not deemed to have fulfilled the condition of revocation, and thus, the revocation disposition of permission for the installation of the above dangerous goods handling facility by the defendant's first fire station at the

Therefore, the disposition to revoke the permission of the petroleum selling business of this case and the disposition to revoke the permission of the chief of the Seocho Construction Station of this case cannot be exempted from each of the revocation because all of the disposition to revoke the permission of the defendant, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is legitimate and accepted, and the lawsuit cost is decided as per the order at the expense of the lost defendants.

Judge Jeong-man (Presiding Judge)