1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 2005, the Plaintiff is operating a gas station C in Taean-gun B (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On February 21, 2013, around 17:30 on February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff, along with the Plaintiff’s employees E, was placed via a 2.5 ton oil tank and went into the D parking lot located in Seosan City, Seosan, after receiving a report, conducted a quality inspection of approximately 1,500 square meters via a oil tank within the oil tank by its employees (hereinafter “instant control”). As a result, it was found that the above light is a fake petroleum mixed with approximately 10% of the light oil.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant mixture”). C.

On January 16, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million pursuant to Article 13(3)8 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 12294, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”) and Article 17 and attached Table 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 79, Aug. 12, 2014) on the ground that the Plaintiff manufactured and sold fake petroleum products to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “previous imposition of penalty surcharge”).

On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the imposition of a penalty surcharge on the ground that the grounds for the imposition of the previous penalty surcharge are nonexistent, and that the grounds for the imposition of the penalty surcharge exist, even if they abuse their discretionary authority.

Daejeon District Court 2014Guhap3350). E

This Court, on June 4, 2015, does not exist in itself as the grounds for the previous disposition of imposing a penalty surcharge. However, the manufacture of fake petroleum products is made once on February 21, 2013, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff did not have been subject to an administrative disposition due to the Plaintiff’s violation of the Petroleum Business Act; and (b) employee E manufactured and transported the mixture oil of this case; and (c) the quantity and frequency of fake petroleum products discovered by a violation appears to be relatively insignificant.