Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff first claims that the plaintiff's mining right was cancelled within one year from the date of the registration of mining right, but the plaintiff's mining right was cancelled within one year from February 25, 1978 under the jurisdiction of Gyeonggi-do Governor after the registration of mining right was completed, so the defendant's above disposition of cancellation of mining right was unlawful since it did not violate the obligation of commencement of mining right during the above period. Thus, the mining right holder shall commence the mining business within one year from the date of registration of mining right, and if the above business cannot be started within one year from the date of registration of mining right, the period shall be fixed and the business shall be suspended continuously for one year or more (Article 41, (1), and (2) of the Mining Industry Act). The plaintiff's application for the registration of suspension of mining right cannot be cancelled within 9 years from the date of registration of non-party 1 (Article 36, subparagraph 1 of the Mining Industry Act). The plaintiff's original statement of cancellation of the registration of non-party 2 (Article 97) of the Mining Industry Act).

Second, the plaintiff completed the registration of change of mining right of this case under the name of the plaintiff 197 May 9, 197. However, the plaintiff actually entered into a sale contract to purchase the mining right from October 20, 1976 to the non-party mining promotion corporation, and succeeded to the prospecting plan and performance in the non-party company area, and recognized the prospecting performance under Article 45-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act from March 12, 1979 to the Minister of Power and Resources, so the defendant cannot cancel the plaintiff's mining right until March 11, 1981, which is 3 years from the date of the above recognition under the proviso of Article 36 (2) of the Mining Industry Act, for the purpose of developing this case, the plaintiff's application for the registration of change of mining right of this case is located within the development restriction zone, and the plaintiff's request for cancellation of the plaintiff's mining right to the above non-party 1's right to request cancellation of the mining right's establishment and establishment of the non-party.

Third, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant should bear a boundary mark on the disused pit and install adequate facilities to prevent the general public from passing through such pit (Article 142 of the Enforcement Rule of the Mining Safety Act), and the plaintiff kept suck milk in the old pit, and the plaintiff cancelled his mining right on the ground that in violation of the mining safety order such as providing water for agricultural use to use high-water water in the pit for agricultural use, he did not follow the original purpose of the mining right, such as mining and acquisition of minerals, which are the original purpose of the mining right. The plaintiff removed agricultural water facilities after storing suck milk in the old pit with the approval of the defendant, and removed it with the approval of the defendant at the request of the relevant administrative agency only once 1978, and the above agricultural water facilities were supplied to the river water near the mining area, which is not for profit-making purpose of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's above cancellation disposition on the ground that the defendant revoked the mining right on the ground of violating the plaintiff's duty of business start-up. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation is without merit on the premise that the defendant's revocation of the plaintiff's mining right is illegal, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the plaintiff who has lost the plaintiff.

November 19, 1981

Judges Park Jong-chul(Presiding Judge)