1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including the branch numbers where no special indication is made; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole pleadings, and there is no reflective evidence:

The Plaintiff is engaged in petroleum retail business while operating “C gas station” in Daegu Northern-gu B.

B. On October 5, 2018, the Daegu Gyeongbuk Headquarters conducted a quality inspection of petroleum products of the Cju station, and notified the Defendant of the fact on November 20, 2018, that the gasoline 1 (number 101, 102) for the relevant automobile is a mixed product with approximately 10% of other petroleum products, such as hydrocarbon oil under subparagraph 1 for automobiles, and petrochemicals, such as Toluene, is a fake petroleum product as defined in Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”).

C. As the Plaintiff raised an objection to the result of the quality inspection, the Defendant requested the Institute to re-testing, and the Institute notified the Defendant of “the result of an objection to the quality inspection of petroleum products” with the same content as the result of the initial test after re-examination of samples.

On December 28, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition suspending business for three months (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 13 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 16 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act by manufacturing, etc. fake petroleum products.

E. The statutes related to the instant disposition are as indicated in the attached Form “related statutes.”

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, who was aware that there was no reason to dispose of it, was supplied with organic solvents, etc., with the knowledge that it was a normal product of duty-free oil, and did not know at all that it was used in manufacturing fake petroleum products.

On May 2018, the Plaintiff’s “normal” judgment was made as a result of the component analysis.