[행정처분취소][집10(1)행,012]
Examples by improper means which establish different types of mining rights within another person's mining area;
If a mining right for different kinds of minerals has been established in the same area by unlawful means, a person who first establishes another mining right shall be likely to impede the management of the mining industry due to the establishment of such unlawful mining right, and such person shall be legally interested in seeking cancellation of the permission for establishment of such unlawful mining right.
Article 19 of the Mining Industry Act
Kim Jong-young (Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy (Attorney Lee Young-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)
J. J.S.
Seoul High Court Decision 4292Da162 delivered on February 22, 1961
This appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are examined.
According to the provisions of Article 19 of the Mining Industry Act, if there is an obstacle to separately operating different kinds of mineral in the same area because two or more different types of mineral can not be established, and if other persons have established a mining right for different kinds of mineral in the same area by making a false application for the establishment of mining right in an unjust manner, the person who first established other mining rights in the same area may interfere with the operation of the mining business in the same area. As such, there is a legal interest in seeking cancellation of the permission for establishment of mining right. Thus, the facts established by legitimate evidence of the original judgment is that the plaintiff has a right to mine in the mining area of this case as of January 14, 1953, and the non-party 1, within the same mining area as the plaintiff's mining area, has an application for the permission for other kinds of mineral, and it is legitimate for the plaintiff to submit to the non-party 1, who is the father of this case to the non-party 2, who is the non-party 1, to whom the above permission for establishment of mining right has been made under the name of 300.
The second ground of appeal is determined.
In this mining area, the Defendant’s permission for the establishment of the mining right of emulh type in the name of the non-party Han Chang-hee need not be based on the legitimate application of Han Chang-hee. It is necessary for Han Chang-hee to forge the documents of Han Chang-hee and thereby be done as belonging and impeding the exercise of the Plaintiff’s mining right. In this regard, this is unlawful, and it is reasonable for the lower court to order the cancellation of the unlawful disposition, and the words of the appellant who experienced the opposing opinion cannot be employed.
Therefore, this appeal shall be dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Judge Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court