1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. From August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff has run the petroleum retail business with the trade name called C gas station in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

On October 19, 2016, the Yong-Namnam Headquarters discovered that, at the E’s place of business located in Kimhae-si, the petroleum products of the instant gas station are being flowed by fake petroleum products mixed with approximately 30% of the petroleum oil in the G freight lane in the F Home Ri vehicle that moves the petroleum products of the instant gas station.

On January 9, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition to suspend business for three months and publicly announce six months pursuant to Article 13(3)8 and subparagraph 2 of Article 39-2 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act on the ground that the Defendant sold fake petroleum products to the Plaintiff as above.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] Gap’s 1, 2, Eul’s 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not intentionally sell fake petroleum products, but the employees of the instant gas station were sold petroleum products mixed with light oil and light oil due to wrong injecting oil in the tank through the home log vehicle. As such, the volume of fake petroleum products sold under the circumstance is merely 149 liter and thus does not have significant damage to consumers and the Plaintiff’s interest. The Plaintiff’s violation is [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act.

1. D.

In light of the fact that the instant disposition constitutes grounds for mitigation of disposition, it is unlawful as it violates the principle of proportionality, thereby deviating from and abusing discretion.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms or not is objectively the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all other relevant circumstances.