1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 7,500,000 on the Plaintiff on July 26, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From February 24, 2012, the Plaintiff is operating a gas station under the trade name called “B direct gas station” on the ground of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On June 12, 2013, around 11:12, 2013, a public official in charge of the Yong-Nam headquarters of the Korea Petroleum Quality Control Service inspected four vehicles among the total amount of 20 gas stations located in the gas stations of the instant case (hereinafter “instant inspection”). As a result, it verified that one vehicle (such as water number EL1201045; hereinafter “the instant abandoned vehicle”) corresponds to the net quantity below the permissible range (20 liter standards, 【150 ml, 【200 ml, etc.”) exceeding the permissible range (20 ml, 【150 ml, etc.) of the used vehicle.

(s) Three main abandonments are each 100 ml, 50 ml, and 40 mlife per 20 life).

On June 18, 2013, the Korea Petroleum Quality Management Agency notified the Defendant of the inspection result of this case. On June 26, 2013, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 750,00,00,00, reduced to the Plaintiff on July 26, 2013, taking into account the various administrative disposition standards prescribed in Articles 39(1)2, 13(3)8, and 14(1)3 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the “petroleum Business Act”), Articles 16 [Attachment Table 1] and 17(1) [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 17(2) [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

(hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case") . The ground for recognition . 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion that the volume inspection of the alcoholic beverage of this case was conducted to be less than 200 m3,000 meters in total quantity, but it exceeded 20 m4,00 among the 20 main alcoholic beverage installed in the oil station of this case, which is caused by the mechanical marization due to bad enjoyment, and the Plaintiff did not have any expert knowledge or technology in relation thereto.