채굴권등록취소및 소멸등록취소
1. The part concerning the claim for revocation of the registration of the extinguishment of extracting rights in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed;
2. The Defendant’s act on September 26, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff owned the following extracting rights (hereinafter “the instant extracting rights”) for the purpose of aggregate extraction business and sales and transportation business:
(h) The area of mining and cadastral name B of the mining and cadastral name B of the extracting rights shall be D E E in the Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, 276, Sep. 1, 2003 to Aug. 31, 2023, Fungbuk-gun, Da Chungcheong-gun, Da Chungcheong-gun, Daung-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Daung-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, 276, Jan. 1, 2014 to Dec. 31, 2023.
On September 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) revoked the extraction right of the instant case by applying Article 35(2)3 of the Mining Industry Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (b) registered the extinction of the extraction right of the instant case on the same day on the ground that “the Plaintiff failed to report mineral production under Article 83 of the Mining Industry Act for three consecutive years.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine ex officio the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the registration of the termination of extracting rights. The plaintiff's claim in this part is a result of claiming revocation of the cancellation of registration under the Mining Registration Decree, namely, cancellation of the cancellation of registration (see Supreme Court Decision 65Nu145, Apr. 6, 196) and eventually seek administrative benefits against the administrative agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Nu145, Apr. 6, 196). A lawsuit seeking execution judgment ordering an administrative agency to take a certain administrative disposition under the current Administrative Litigation Act is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200, Sept. 30, 197). The part seeking revocation of
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. On June 21, 2017, the Defendant sent a notice of hearing on the revocation of the extraction rights of this case to H whose representative director was suspended from performing his/her duties due to the decision of temporary suspension of the stay of the resident support at Daegu District Court (hereinafter “instant notice”).