광업권설정불허가처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
The reasoning of this court's ruling of the first instance court is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the first instance court, except for the parts to be determined additionally in the following paragraphs, and thus, (b) Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
5 pages (3) The term " September 24, 2012" in paragraph (3) shall be changed to " September 4, 2012".
10.On the 11th page “B” addition, “The Plaintiff had already known that the objective of the first on-site investigation is “verification of existence of a mineral” according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 15 and 26.”
11. 12 and 13. paragraph 3 provides that “In the light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 18 through 24, it is difficult to view that the test results are distorted, such as the addition and loss of minerals, if there is a large amount of inputs of Mesiums or grhesium 18 to 24.”
The plaintiff asserts that the application area of this case satisfies the standard of scale and dignity of the mineral body under the mining laws and regulations, but the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.
However, in light of the above evidence and recognized circumstances, it is sufficient to recognize the grounds for the instant disposition, such as “less the scale and standard of dignity of minerals”. Thus, the instant disposition is lawful.
The decision of the first instance court in the decision is justifiable.
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.