[2] The case holding that a person who reported the discovery of a hot spring asserts that the benefit that can be preferentially permitted to utilize a hot spring from the competent administrative agency is the preferential right to use a hot spring, and that the new landowner cannot seek confirmation of the right

[2] The case holding that a person who reported the discovery of a hot spring can not seek confirmation of the right against the new landowner on the ground that the benefit that the competent administrative agency can preferentially obtain permission to utilize a hot spring is the preferential right to use a hot spring

According to the records and reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff discovered hot spring hole construction on December 26, 1995 and reported it to the Government Mayor on the land of this case owned by him. The Government Mayor accepted the plaintiff's report of hot spring discovery on April 10, 1996. The plaintiff obtained approval of a tourist hotel business plan from the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on December 13, 1996 on the land of this case that he will build 1st, 6th, guest rooms, 108 hotels, public bath, sports facilities, etc. The Governor of the Gyeonggi-do after receiving an application for a compulsory auction on October 23, 1997 at the request of the Government City Mayor, designated a hot spring hole as a hot spring hole development zone on December 26, 199, and received an application for a change in the construction permit of the former urban planning facility on August 23, 199, and applied for a change in the construction permit of the urban planning facility from the Government on the land of this case.

As the Plaintiff’s primary claim of this case, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Plaintiff had the right to use and utilize the said hot spring against the new landowner, if the Plaintiff acquired the right to develop and utilize the hot spring inasmuch as the price of the land in this case was designated as a hot spring district and obtained approval for a hot spring development plan after reporting the discovery of hot spring hole to the land in this case, as seen above, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Plaintiff had the right to use and utilize the hot spring in this case. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had the right to use and utilize the hot spring in this case, and that the Plaintiff had the right to use and utilize the hot spring, as long as the government market reported the discovery of the hot spring hole in this case and the report was accepted by the Plaintiff.

According to the provisions of Articles 17(1), 18, 5(1) and 11(1) of the former Hot Spring Act (amended by Act No. 5121, Dec. 30, 1995, which was in force from July 1, 1996), a person who has discovered hot spring due to the exploitation or exploration of hot spring in an area other than a hot spring district shall report to the head of the competent Si/Gun. Such a person who has reported as such shall have priority in granting permission for the excavation of hot spring or utilization of hot spring, or in granting subsidies or loans for the cost of discovery or excavation. According to the provisions of Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of the former Hot Spring Act (amended by Act No. 6119, Jan. 12, 200), the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor or Do governor, who has no priority in obtaining permission for the exploitation of hot spring from the competent administrative agency or the head of the competent Gun/autonomous Gu, who has not been designated as a new hot spring development plan.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, but it is just in the conclusion of rejecting the plaintiff's main and conjunctive claims. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the hot spring law and by erroneously applying the law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and the Supreme Court Decision 99Du7470 Decided October 23, 2001, which is contrary to the ground of appeal, concerning the case where the landowner was changed after the permission for groundwater use was granted, and it is inappropriate to invoke the case differently, and therefore, it cannot be said that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the purport

Furthermore, in the case of this case, the argument in the ground of appeal that the plaintiff and the new landowner, who are the acceptance of a report of hot spring discovery, share a hot spring preferential right, or have the right to develop and utilize a hot spring on the condition that the plaintiff acquire a legitimate right to the land in this case,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)