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 around January 2006, the Plaintiff is running the petroleum sales business with the trade name called the Ccellp gas station in Seodaemun-si B (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On April 26, 2017, the Daegu Gyeongbuk Headquarters collected samples from D mobile-sale vehicles of the instant gas station (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and conducted the quality inspection of petroleum products, and discovered the fact that mixed oil with 40% to 75% of the light oil for automobiles was added.

C. On July 15, 2017, the Defendant sold fake petroleum products to the Plaintiff and rendered a disposition of business suspension for three months based on Article 13 of the former Petroleum Business Act and Article 16 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Defendant violated Article 29(1)1 of the former Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 14774, Apr. 18, 2017; hereinafter “former Petroleum Business Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On April 26, 2017, E, the Plaintiff’s land, was in charge of gas station duties upon the Plaintiff’s request on April 26, 2017. However, in a situation where the Plaintiff completed a delivery via the National Highway Construction Site on the same day and promised the delivery of oil to the P.M., the Plaintiff was in contact with the construction site for an additional need for transit for the operation of crypters. E, after delivery of the oil via the above site, was delivered to deliver the oil immediately after the delivery of the oil to the above site, was made to deliver the oil immediately, and then the delivery was made by carrying the oil in the front column of the instant vehicle, and the delivery was made at the same time by an error. At that time, the Plaintiff and E did not intend to sell fake petroleum products in the instant vehicle.