1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing the penalty surcharge against the Plaintiff on November 13, 2018 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating the Criju station “Criju station” in Gwangju Mine-gu B

B. On October 18, 2018, the Korea Petroleum & Petroleum Management Headquarters notified the Plaintiff of the result of quality inspection that the above gas station's fuel tanks are mixed with approximately 25% of the fuel tanks collected from the oil tank in the KCAD on October 4, 2018, using the mobile oil tank in the KCAD, about 40% of the oil filling, about 10% of the oil filling in the sample collected from the main organic tank connected to the oil tank in the KCAD, about 20% of the construction machinery in the KCAD, the fuel tank in the cargo truck (E), about 25% of the oil filling in the fuel tank in the KCAD, which constitutes fake petroleum products provided for in Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the "petroleum Business Act").

C. The Defendant, on November 13, 2018, posted a written notice of “the imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 50,000 on the violation of the Petroleum Business Act to the Plaintiff,” with pictures, and “the instant disposition” on November 14, 2018.

(B) [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap's 1 to 3, 6 to 9, Eul's statements or images, witness H's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In the course of the instant disposition, the Defendant did not present the grounds and reasons for the instant disposition to the Plaintiff and did not deliver a document regarding the disposition, and did not inform the Plaintiff of the method of objection, such as whether to file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation, the procedure for filing a claim and the deadline for filing a claim. As such, the instant disposition violated Article 23, 24, and 26 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

B. The non-existence of the grounds for disposition result of the quality inspection of the Institute cannot be trusted because the mixed oil rate is different depending on the location of samples collected, and even if multiple oil is mixed, it is a contingent accident caused by a valve defect connecting the front and rear shooting room of the vehicle moving for the vehicle moving. Therefore, there is no ground for disposition in this case.

3. The relationship.