1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a petroleum retailer as prescribed by the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) that operates a gas station located in Daejeondong-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “instant gas station”) from around 2001.

B. On February 26, 2014, the Daejeon Chungcheong Headquarters collected samples from two oil storage tanks in the instant gas station and from one tank delivery vehicle, and conducted quality inspections.

C. As a result, samples collected from the oil storage tank were determined as normal petroleum products, but the fuel for automobiles collected from the storage part of the D vehicle (in the middle of the 3,000 foot tank, walls were installed in the middle of the 3,00 foot tank, divided into the corresponding storage part and the transit storage part; hereinafter “instant selling vehicle”) which is the tank delivery vehicle was mixed with approximately 5% of other petroleum products.

On April 11, 2014, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 50 million on the Plaintiff by applying Article 13(3)8, 12, and 14(1) of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 17(1) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 78, Aug. 12, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the former Petroleum Business Act”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff manufactured and stored fake petroleum products under Article 2(10) of the Petroleum Business Act and violated Article 29(1)1 of the Petroleum Business Act.”

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Daejeon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission. On June 23, 2014, the Daejeon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission mixing only 5% of the usage of an automobile, which appears to be attributable to negligence in the Plaintiff’s management rather than for profit, and considering the Plaintiff’s economic difficulties, etc., the disposition of KRW 50 million is somewhat harsh than that of the offense and disadvantage.