[2] Whether the provisions of Article 24 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, Chapter 6 of the Land Expropriation Act, and Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Loss of Works, respectively, can be a legal basis for the right to file an application for compensation for losses suffered by a part of mining area area due to the construction of dams

[3] In the case of paragraph (2), whether a measure that rejected a claim for compensation for losses by a mining right holder can be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal (negative)

[4] [2] In the case of paragraph (2), the method of remedy by a mining right holder seeking compensation for losses (=civil procedure)

[2] The provisions of Article 24 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, Chapter 6 of the Land Expropriation Act, and Article 3 (1) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Loss of Works, are not applicable to the right to apply for the compensation for losses suffered by a part of the mining area area due to dam construction.

[3] The provisions of Article 24 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, Chapter 6 of the Land Expropriation Act, and Article 3 (1) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Loss of Works, etc. are not relevant to the application for compensation for losses to the head of dam construction business. Thus, the mining right holder does not have a statutory right to apply for compensation for losses to the head of dam construction business, and the mining right holder does not appear to have a legitimate right to apply for compensation to the head of dam construction business. Thus, the mining right holder'

[4] Article 41 of the Specific Multipurpose Dam Act provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall pay appropriate compensation if there is a person who suffers losses due to the construction of a dam. However, the original right holder is to receive monetary compensation for losses suffered due to the construction of an reinforced dam for the Southern Multipurpose Dam, which is owned by the mining right holder due to the occurrence of a part of the mining area area owned by the mining right holder due to the construction of the reinforced dam for the Southern Multipurpose Dam, and the above Act does not provide for the method of determining the compensation and the procedure for appeal. Thus, the person who intends to claim compensation on the ground that the requirements under Article 41 of the Specific Multipurpose Dam Act are satisfied as the mining right holder, such as the pertinent mining right holder, should not file an appeal against the claim for compensation

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 7, 1985, Plaintiff 1 registered the establishment of the mining right of this case with the permission from the Minister of Power and Resources, and on November 7, 1989, transferred shares of 1/2 of the above mining right to Plaintiff 2 to Plaintiff 2, and the plaintiffs jointly mined old soil in the above mining area. The plaintiffs filed an application for compensation with the defendant on June 28, 1993 for compensation on the ground that construction works of the Southern River Multipurpose Dam implemented by the Korea Water Resources Corporation in an area where the above mining right belongs to the above mining right cannot be exercised due to the reinforcement dam of the Southern River Multipurpose Dam, which was implemented by the Korea Water Resources Corporation in an area where the above mining right belongs. The defendant filed an application for compensation with the plaintiffs on May 2, 1994, and confirmed that the plaintiffs sought the revocation of the above compensation application (hereinafter referred to as the "measures of this case"), based on the reasons as stated in its reasoning, the plaintiffs sought the revocation of the above measures within public period of Article 24, Chapter 6(1).

The so-called rejection disposition that an administrative agency, upon receipt of a request from a citizen, dismissed the request or did not perform any act with the content of the request without complying with the formal requirements, shall be subject to appeal litigation as a kind of administrative disposition. In this case, in order to become an administrative disposition, the citizen shall have the right to demand the administrative agency to conduct an administrative act according to the request. If a citizen refuses to accept the request without such grounds, the refusal shall not be subject to appeal litigation as it does not affect the applicant's right or legal interest because it does not affect the applicant's right or legal interest (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu27, Oct. 23, 1984; 89Nu8101, Sept. 28, 199; 90Nu5979, Feb. 26, 1991; 97Nu19638, Oct. 195, 197; 197Nu1965, Feb. 26, 1991).

With respect to this case, the provisions of Article 24 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act, Chapter 6 of the Land Expropriation Act, and Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss and Loss of Land, which are cited by the court below, cannot be a basis for the right to request the defendant to compensate for loss.

In other words, the Special Act on the Compensation for Public Loss provides that "the loss suffered by the owners of land, etc. due to the acquisition or use of land, etc. for public projects shall be compensated by the project implementer," and Article 22 (1) of the Enforcement Rule provides that "The specific criteria and methods for the amount of compensation for loss due to the extinguishment of mining rights shall be determined by the project implementer," but Article 22 (1) of the Enforcement Rule provides that "the compensation for loss incurred by the owners of land, etc. due to the acquisition or use of land, etc. for public projects shall be compensated by the project implementer," in the acquisition or use of land, etc. necessary for public projects by consultation, unless consultation on the compensation for loss is reached, the specific claim for compensation is not immediately made by itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da54105, Nov. 8, 1996; 95Da2671

In addition, Article 24 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act provides that the Corporation may expropriate or use the land, etc. under the provisions of Article 2 of the Land Expropriation Act when necessary for the execution of the project, and the provisions of the Land Expropriation Act shall apply to the expropriation or use except as otherwise provided in this Act. However, since the Korea Water Resources Corporation does not expropriate the plaintiffs' mining rights for the construction works of reinforcement dams of the Southern River Multipurpose Dam, the provisions of Article 24 of the Korea Water Resources Corporation Act cannot be the basis for applying for compensation (Article 45), the compensation principle (Articles 46 through 56), the standards and method for calculating the amount of compensation (Articles 46 through 56), and the procedure for adjudication on the compensation for damages (Article 57) cannot be the basis for the claim for compensation of this case.

Therefore, since the above provisions of each of the above laws and other laws and regulations acknowledged by the court below and the claims by the plaintiffs against the defendant cannot be the basis of the application for compensation for losses, they are not legally entitled to apply for compensation for losses to the defendant, and they do not appear to have any other right in the cooking right to apply for compensation for losses to the defendant. Thus, the measure of this case which rejected the application for compensation by the plaintiffs

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rejection disposition that is the object of appeal litigation, and thereby accepting the plaintiffs' claim based on the judgment of the court below. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Meanwhile, Article 41 of the Specific Multipurpose Dam Act provides that "the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall pay appropriate compensation if there is any person who suffers a loss due to the construction of a dam." However, in addition to the provisions of Article 41 of the Specific Multipurpose Dam Act, the Plaintiffs are seeking monetary compensation for losses incurred due to the construction of the reinforced dam for the Southern Multipurpose Dam, and the above Act does not provide for the methods of determining the compensation and the procedure for appeal. Thus, the Plaintiffs, like the Plaintiffs, shall not file an appeal against the State to which the Minister of Construction and Transportation belongs, even if they refuse to claim compensation or determine the amount of compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13848 delivered on July 26, 1996).

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed without considering the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal, and this court is sufficient to render a direct judgment, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and all costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)