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 that operates a general retail shop under the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “petroleum Business Act”) with the trade name of Goyang-gu, Yangyang-gu.

B. Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 43(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act prohibit acts that undermine sound distribution order of petroleum, such as supplying or being supplied with petroleum products in violation of the business scope or business methods by petroleum retail business.

Meanwhile, according to the latter part of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum Business Act, only a general retail store that reports the trading situation to the Korea Petroleum Quality & Distribution Institute on a weekly basis among the general retail stores in the face area by means of a computerized report determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy may be supplied with

On November 26, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased light oil of KRW 1,000 and KRW 870,000,000 at the E station located in Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si, even though the Plaintiff was not operating a general retail store located in the area of the Myeon.

(hereinafter “instant violation”). C.

On November 27, 2018, the Plaintiff’s petition for punishing the Plaintiff’s violation was received from the Defendant on November 27, 2018, and the employees of the Institute visit the Plaintiff’s place of business on November 28, 2018 and supply light oil from the Plaintiff’s employees using a mobile-sale vehicle at the E station from the end of October 2018.

Accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of one-month prior disposition of the suspension of business on December 2018. On January 16, 2019, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 13(4)8 of the same Act and Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 39(1)10 of the Petroleum Business Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 9 respectively, and arguments.