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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments between the 7th and 8th 9 of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4) As to the assertion of violation of the principle of trust protection

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “the Defendant’s extension of the duration of the instant mining right to November 13, 2018,” which, on May 31, 2013, ordered a public opinion to refuse to revoke the instant mining right until the expiration of the said duration, the Plaintiff trusted that the instant mining right will not be revoked until the expiration of the said duration, but the Defendant’s cancellation of the instant mining right on July 22, 2013 violates the principle of trust protection and is unlawful.”

However, Article 12(2) of the former Mining Industry Act and Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act provide that "permission for the extension of the term of a mining right" and "cancellation of a mining right" under Article 35 subparagraph 1 of the former Mining Industry Act and Article 40(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act differ from the grounds and requirements. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant issued a public opinion expressing that the Plaintiff would not cancel the mining right of this case until the expiration date of the term, solely on the ground that the Defendant extended the term of the mining right of this case to the Plaintiff on May

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that there was a defendant's public opinion statement that does not revoke the mining right of this case is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration of extinguishment of a mining right in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed as the remainder of the plaintiff's claim is groundless. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided

Judges Kim Gin-jin

Judges, Superintendent of the National Assembly