2. On February 22, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of conversion of a mining right against the extraction right A with respect to the extraction right shall be revoked.

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

2. Determination on this safety defense

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

B. Relevant legislation

This court's reasoning is the same as that of each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thus citing it by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Determination

1) Whether the revised mining plan of June 12, 200 was approved on March 26, 1963 and whether the revised mining plan was substantially modified on July 21, 1976

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the written evidence Nos. 11, 13, and 14 and the written evidence Nos. 11, 13, and 14 are not substantially identical to the authorization of the mining plan issued on June 12, 200 and the authorization of the alteration of the mining plan issued on March 26, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "authorization of the case") and the authorization of the alteration of the mining plan issued on July 21, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "previous authorization"), and that the major part is substantially changed.

① The contents of the mining plan approved on June 12, 200 include the mining plan for N and P mining rights as well as the mining plan for N and P mining rights, on the premise that the mining rights of this case and N and P mining rights should be developed by integrating them into one mine.

② In the case of the mining right of this case, after the revised mining plan was approved on July 21, 1976, the report of the Korea Mining Promotion Corporation Ye Mining Technology Survey, etc., and the result of the sample analysis conducted by the Korea Predive metal Analysis and Assessment Board on May 8, 200, indicated the scale and dignity of minerals by beer, and the current gold department established the production and sale plan and the branch budget by reflecting wholesale prices. < Amended by Act No. 6368, May 15, 2000>

③ Since materials to confirm the specific contents of the previous authorization have not been submitted until the trial at the trial at the trial, it cannot be concluded that the previous authorization was substantially the same as the previous authorization. Rather, if the previous authorization is substantially the same as the previous authorization, the subject of the revocation lawsuit cannot be deemed to have expired due to the said authorization, and thus, the subject of the revocation lawsuit cannot be the subject of the instant authorization. However, the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2003Guhap23233 (Seoul High Court 20055323 and Supreme Court 2006Du75777, Seoul High Court 2008Nu2672, and Supreme Court 2009Du6388, which was remanded after the reversal, and hereinafter referred to as the “related lawsuit”) did not raise any objection to the revocation of the instant authorization in the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff also did not raise any objection to the confirmation of the final judgment related to the lawsuit.

2) The relationship between the revocation judgment of the instant authorization and the final and conclusive judgment and the validity of the previous authorization

In a case where a part of the contents of the preceding disposition is merely a minor modification, the preceding disposition shall not be deemed extinguished. However, in a case where a subsequent disposition is made with the content that substantially alters the main parts of the preceding disposition, the preceding disposition shall lose its validity (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du20782, 20799, Dec. 13, 2012). In such a case, the time when the preceding disposition becomes null and void shall be deemed to be when the formal existence, such as the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, has occurred against the subsequent disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9653, May 28, 2002).

As seen earlier, since the authorization of this case actually changed the main parts of the previous authorization, the previous authorization was in a state of losing its validity. However, the relevant lawsuit was brought to seek revocation before the formal continued existence of the authorization of this case has yet to arise (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu26772, which was remanded after the reversal, determined that the relevant lawsuit was complied with). In such a situation, the relevant lawsuit is pending and the revocation judgment becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the previous authorization has no effect.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the mining right of this case was not authorized as a mining plan under the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 982, Jan. 27, 2010) on the ground that the previous authorization has lost its validity, is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted for the reasons, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's appeal and cancelling the disposition of this case.

Judges Nown Korea

Judge Lee Ro-man