3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On November 13, 2001, the Plaintiff jointly owned the following mining rights (hereinafter “mining rights of this case”) with B and C. On May 31, 201, the Defendant extended the term of existence of the mining rights of this case by November 13, 2018.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On July 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) registered the extinguishment of the instant mining right on the ground that the joint mining right holder, including the Plaintiff, did not commence a business (prospecting or mining) until two years have passed since the date of establishment registration; (b) applying Article 35 Subparag. 1 and Article 40(1) of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 9982, Jan. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Mining Industry Act”); and (c) on the same day, “the instant disposition” (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (d) ex officio nonperformance of the obligation to develop” on the same date. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on October 22, 2013, but was dismissed on April 3, 2014.

[Ground for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11, Eul evidence Nos. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings. 2. Of the lawsuit of this case, ex officio whether the part seeking cancellation of the registration of extinction of a mining right is legitimate, the plaintiff's claim for this part of the lawsuit of this case is a result of claiming cancellation of the registration of cancellation of a mining right under the Decree on the Registration of Mining Business, i.e., cancellation of the registration of cancellation of a mining right, and eventually seek administrative benefits against the administrative agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Nu145, Apr. 6, 196), and under the current Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking execution judgment ordering an administrative agency to take a certain administrative disposition is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200, Sept. 30, 197).

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) procedural defects;

Although the plaintiff's place of service was changed to the representative director's domicile, the plaintiff's opportunity to state his opinion was lost by excluding the plaintiff from the hearing procedure. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful due to procedural defect.

2) Article 35 subparagraph 2 of the former Mining Industry Act (Article 35 (2) 6 of the Mining Industry Act claimed by the plaintiff) provides that "if a business has been discontinued for at least one year without obtaining authorization under Article 40 (3) as one of the grounds for revocation of mining rights, it shall be excluded where an investment prescribed by Presidential Decree has been made during the three-year period prior to suspending the business." However, the plaintiff has invested approximately KRW 1.3 billion in the marine aggregate extraction transport line for mining based on the mining right of this case, such as purchasing KRW 1.1 billion, and thereby satisfying "investment performance prescribed by Presidential Decree" under the proviso. Thus, the defendant cannot revoke the mining right of this case. Nevertheless, the defendant revoked the mining right of this case by applying Article 35 subparagraph 1 of the former Mining Industry Act.

(iii) deviation from and abuse of discretionary power;

On May 31, 2013, prior to the instant disposition, when the short period of three months from March 30, 2013, which was the date on which the Defendant permitted the extension of the term of mining rights of the instant case, with respect to the Plaintiff who invested a huge amount of funds, the Defendant’s disposition of the instant case was deemed to have exceeded and abused discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the assertion of procedural defect

According to the evidence No. 11, No. 11, No. 11, No. 2, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, the Plaintiff appeared in the hearing procedure concerning the cancellation of the mining right of this case conducted at the Defendant’s office on June 24, 2013 and presented the relevant documents, such as a mining development promotion plan, written consent, and the current status of investment performance, and stated his/her opinion requesting the postponement of the cancellation. The Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the documents, such as the written consent of fishing village fraternity, etc. on July 2, 2013, including the written consent of fishing village fraternity, and the standard technical service contract, etc. on July 16, 2013, and thus, the opportunity to state opinion was lost by being excluded from the hearing procedure. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected

2) In full view of the respective provisions of Articles 35 subparag. 1 and 2, and 40(1) through (4) of the former Mining Industry Act regarding the assertion of error in the application of statutes, if a mining right holder fails to commence his/her business (referring to prospecting and mining; hereinafter the same shall apply) after the establishment of a mining right is registered, the administrative agency may cancel the mining right under Article 35 subparag. 1 of the former Mining Industry Act, regardless of whether the mining right holder has invested or not, and if a mining right holder starts his/her business and continues his/her business for at least one consecutive year without authorization, the administrative agency may not cancel the mining right under the proviso of Article 35 subparag. 2 of the

In this case, the following facts can be acknowledged if the plaintiff started the business on the premise of applying the proviso of Article 35 subparagraph 2 of the former Mining Industry Act, and the whole purport of the pleading is added to the statements in subparagraphs 1-1 and 2 of Article 35-2 of the former Mining Industry Act.

① The Plaintiff and B filed an application for authorization for mining plan with the Do governor Jeonnam-do four times since the establishment of the mining right of the instant case, but ordered the preservation, management, etc. of the marine environment and ecosystem.

All of the public waters are rejected on the grounds that the permission for occupation and use of public waters can not be granted.

② On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for permission to extract aggregate to treat aggregate generated in the course of mining projects, but was subject to a disposition of nonpermission on March 5, 2013 on the grounds that it constitutes a fishery resources protection zone and is anticipated to damage fishing grounds and may disrupt marine ecosystems. On June 18, 2013, the Plaintiff was also subject to a dismissal ruling even in an administrative trial.

③ Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a provisional disposition to deny the extraction of aggregate as the Gwangju District Court 2013Guhap2198, but was sentenced to dismissal on July 24, 2014. On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff was also sentenced to dismissal of the appeal even in the case of Gwangju High Court 2014Nu5964, which was pending as the Plaintiff’s appeal.

④ Even though the Plaintiff obtained the authorization for the suspension of commencement of mining operations from the Gangwon-do head with respect to the instant mining right from March 31, 2010 to March 30, 2013, the Plaintiff did not commence business until the expiration of the grace period.

In full view of the above facts, since the plaintiff did not start a business at all after the registration of the establishment of a mining right, the defendant's act of taking the disposition of this case by applying subparagraph 1 of Article 35 of the former Mining Industry Act, not Article 35 subparagraph 2 of the same Act, is legitimate as it is based on the interpretation of the above relevant provisions. The plaintiff'

3) With respect to the assertion of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power, permission for the establishment of mining rights is revoked even if the State grants mining rights, the right to acquire minerals that have not been mined, for the sake of public interest, even after permission, and does not commence mining within a certain period of time. Minerals resources are the basic resources used as the foundation of the industry, which have a significant impact on the national economy, but are limited to the national land, so the State’s involvement should establish mining rights, and once the establishment of mining rights is established, it is necessary to induce the development of mineral resources that belong to the area according to the purport of the establishment of mining rights. The revocation system is to promptly adjust idle mining rights by holding mining rights under the name of the mining rights without developing long-term mineral resources, even if the establishment of mining rights is registered in accordance with such needs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du2871, May 25, 199).

In light of the above purport of the revocation system, in light of the health awareness as to whether the instant disposition was abused from discretion, and the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition was abused or abused by discretion, even if considering all the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff.

(1) Article 12(2) of the former Mining Industry Act, Article 4(1)1 proviso, and attached Table 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22556, Dec. 28, 2010); where the total amount invested in various facilities, equipment, etc. even though there is no actual record of mineral production is at least KRW 100 million, the permission for extension of the term of mining right shall be granted; thus, Article 35 subparag. 1 of the former Mining Industry Act provides for the requirements different from the grounds for revocation of mining right under Article 35 subparag. 1 of the former Mining Industry Act. As such, where a person violates the obligation to commence business under Article 40(1) of the former Mining Industry Act

② The Plaintiff did not commence its business until 12 years have elapsed since the date of registration of the establishment of the mining right of this case.

③ The reason why the Plaintiff failed to commence the business seems to be impossible to supplement the business by preserving the marine environment and ecosystem, preventing damage to fishery rights in the surrounding area.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the registration of extinguishment of a mining right in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Promotion of Judges

Judges fixed-term United States

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.