[1] Whether mixing petroleum products with other petroleum products, such as normal gasoline, constitutes pseudo petroleum products (affirmative)

[2] Whether mixing a normal petroleum product with another petroleum product constitutes a pseudo petroleum product even in a case where it satisfies the quality standards of normal petroleum products under the former Petroleum Business Act (affirmative)

[1] pseudo petroleum products under Article 22 (2) of the former Petroleum Business Act (amended by Act No. 5092 of Dec. 29, 1995) include mixing of other petroleum products such as oil or light oil with normal gasoline.

[2] As long as a normal gasoline mixed with other petroleum products, such as light oil or light oil, the product constitutes pseudo petroleum products even if it satisfies the quality standards of automobile gasoline for automobiles under subparagraph 2 of Article 18-2 (3) and (1) of the former Petroleum Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5092 of Dec. 29, 195), and Article 11-5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (wholly amended by Act No. 51 of Dec. 31, 1996).

[1] Article 22 (2) of the former Petroleum Business Act (amended by Act No. 5092 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [2] Article 18-2 (1) (see Article 24 (3)), (3) (see Article 25 (3)), Article 22 (2) (see Article 26) of the former Petroleum Business Act (amended by Act No. 5092 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 11-5 (2) [Attachment 2] 2 of the former Petroleum Business Act (amended by Act No. 5092 of Dec. 31, 1996)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu461 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1304) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3710 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2370) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu13106 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong192, 1188)

Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

South Ocean Market

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu23899 delivered on August 30, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

Article 22 (2) of the former Petroleum Business Act (amended by Act No. 5092 of Dec. 29, 1995) includes mixing of other petroleum products, such as normal gasoline oil or light oil (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu461, Jul. 25, 1989; 91Nu3710, Aug. 13, 1991; 91Nu13106, Feb. 25, 1992; 91Nu13106, Feb. 25, 1992; 199-2 (3) and (1) of the same Act, and Article 11-5 (2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 51 of Dec. 31, 196).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's act of mixing oil, etc., which is a low-point petroleum product with normal gasoline, constitutes an act in violation of Article 22 (2) of the same Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to pseudo petroleum product, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)