2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On November 9, 2011, the defendant revoked the decision of non-permission for the establishment of the exploration right (application number B) against the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act recognize the part concerning the judgment of Article 2-3(3) of the judgment of the court of first instance (not more than 4.5 of the judgment of the court of first instance) as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part concerning the judgment of first instance (not more

2. The part used for repair: Determination

(1) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s first argument

The Mining Industry Act, by Act No. 9982, Jan. 27, 2010, separately determines the term of mining rights by separating them into the exploration rights and the extraction rights according to the stage of mine development, and after confirming the existence of minerals and the economic feasibility thereof through exploration in accordance with the exploration plan, the extraction rights shall be granted in cases where exploration results are recognized. If exploration of minerals in the application area harms the public interest, the establishment of mining rights shall not be granted (Article 24(1)). Accordingly, the Enforcement Rule of the Mining Industry Act delegates the standards to the Minister of Knowledge Economy (Article 24(3)). Accordingly, the Enforcement Rule of the Mining Industry Act provides that the establishment of mining rights shall be subject to the grounds for infringement of public interest if the application area for the establishment of mining rights corresponds to the site of a major national construction project or the area designated and publicly notified as its adjoining area (Article 11(1)), and stipulates that the consultation on whether the establishment of mining rights is restricted pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes

Meanwhile, the application area of this case is located in a Do park designated by Article 4 of the Natural Parks Act, and the Natural Parks Act designates the criteria for acts permitted within each specific use district by dividing natural parks into nature conservation districts in a park, park natural environment districts in a park, park village districts in a park, and park heritage districts. In the case of a park nature conservation district in a park, academic research, nature

Only a minimum act recognized as such, construction of minimum park facilities and park projects according to the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree are permitted (Article 18(1) and (2) of the Natural Parks Act), and a person who intends to extract minerals or extract soil, stones, sand and gravel in a park area shall obtain permission from the park management agency (Article 23(1) of the Natural Parks Act).

In light of the above relevant provisions and the legislative purpose of the Natural Parks Act intending to preserve the natural ecosystem, nature, and cultural landscape and promote sustainable use, even if the establishment of exploration rights in the application area of this case located in a natural park does not directly constitute “the act of extracting minerals” as stipulated in Article 23(1) of the Natural Parks Act, the act that is likely to undermine the public interest under the Natural Parks Act is generally limited. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Defendant to take the instant disposition after consultation with the park management authority pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Mining Industry Act. Considering the scope and location of the application area of this case and anticipated environmental damage as a result of drilling, etc., compared to the social and economic interest gained by the establishment of exploration rights by the Plaintiff, the instant disposition in this case is deemed to have exceeded and abused discretionary power. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable.

(2) Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

Article 15(5) of the Mining Industry Act provides that "The Minister of Knowledge Economy shall conduct a field investigation when he/she receives an application for the establishment of mining rights, or when any ground prescribed by Presidential Decree exists, he/she shall not conduct a field investigation." Paragraph (6) of the same Article provides that when he/she intends to conduct a field investigation pursuant to paragraph (5) of the same Article, he/she may designate an investigator, matters and place of attendance, and date and order an applicant for mining business and interested mining right holder to attend." Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act delegated by Article 15(5) of the Mining Industry Act provides that where the existence of target minerals is confirmed by each report

In full view of the above relevant provisions, the purport of Article 15 of the Mining Industry Act stipulating that an application for mining rights shall be filed in the event of receipt of an application for mining rights is to coordinate the interests of applicants and interested parties as to whether the target mineral exists and to coordinate the interests of interested parties. Thus, it does not mean that the defendant has an obligation to conduct a field investigation, even if there are other reasons for which the establishment of mining rights of applicants cannot be permitted

Based on these legal principles, considering the various circumstances revealed in the records in the instant case, it is clear that the Defendant rendered the instant disposition on the ground of infringement of public interest regardless of existence of the target mineral. Therefore, if the Defendant’s ground for disposition is justified, the mere fact that the Defendant did not undergo a field investigation does not constitute procedural errors in the instant disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Since the instant disposition is lawful, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is inappropriate on the contrary to this conclusion. Therefore, the first instance judgment is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

Judges Dok-woo

Judges Yoon Jong-dae