2013Guhap58979 Revocation of Disposition of Conversion Registration of Mining Right

continental Mining Co., Ltd.

The head of the Mining Registration Office

February 7, 2014

March 21, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of conversion of mining rights against extracting rights A on February 22, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. 1) The defendant's registration number to B and C under the Joseon Mining Order which was enforced at the time of July 17, 1935: A, location: D, E, F, mining land register: G, H, and mining land name: gold, silver, ceregni (gold at the time of establishment of mining business right, gold and silver were changed on October 26, 1943), size: 33th (the size of the above mining right was 30th (the size of the mining right was 333th as at the time of permission, but the size was 33th as ex officio on December 20, 1976). B and C obtained the application for the establishment of mining right as the representative of B on the same day and completed the registration of establishment of mining right (hereinafter referred to as "mining right of this case").

2) After that, as the Mining Industry Act was enacted by Act No. 234 on December 23, 1951 and came into force from February 22, 1952, the term of existence was extended to 25 years from the enforcement date of the above Act pursuant to Article 83 of the Addenda. The Defendant permitted the extension of the term of existence until February 20, 202, and around December 20, 201, the term of existence was extended to 20 years from the enforcement date of the above Act.

3) The mining right of this case was transferred to J on July 24, 1943, and was transferred to K on December 15, 1943, and again transferred to K on September 11, 1948, and reverted to the Republic of Korea, and the remaining B and C shares were sold to L on July 13, 1964, to the 1963 and June 6, 1964, to the K Telecommunication Promotion Co., Ltd., Ltd., as of June 12, 1969, and to M on May 27, 197, to the Korea Trade Promotion Co., Ltd., Ltd., as of June 12, 196; and M was owned by the sole owner of M by voluntarily withdrawing from the position of joint mining right holders as of June 12, 196.

4) On March 26, 1963, the Cheongbuk-do Governor approved mining plans with respect to the mining right of this case to L, etc., and revised the mining plan again to M on July 21, 1976.

B. On December 3, 1997, the defendant, on the plaintiff, (1) registration number : N, (1) registration number : N: 0 unit E, D, mining land register: 0 unit, gold, silver, area: 175 type: Registration number : P, location : E, Q, D, mining land register: R before unit, e-mail: 274 type, metal, e-mail, size: 274 type, and the plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of mining right for P and P mining right on December 11, 1997 by integrating P and P mining right with the permission of 820m for farmland diversion from the head of the voice Gun, 200, 2003, 207, 207, 207, 70m of forest land and land form change Y, 200, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 2700m of forest and forest land change.

D. 1) The Plaintiff participated in the lawsuit by the Cheongbuk-do governor on June 12, 200 against the Plaintiff on July 29, 2003, the Seoul Do governor, as Seoul 2003Guhap23233, while residing within the mining area of the instant mining right, N and P mining right, or in the vicinity thereof, owned 80 residents who own the land and house located within the said area, and as an incorporated foundation which owns U facilities within the mining area of the instant mining right, etc., which is a social welfare facility located within the said area, including the instant mining right, N and P mining right, filed a lawsuit against the Do governor on July 29, 200, seeking the cancellation of the mining plan modification disposition as of June 12, 200. The above court rejected the appeal by the Do governor on February 15, 2005 on the ground that there was no error of violating the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes regarding the mining plan modification disposition, and there was no deviation or abuse of groundwater by the Do governor.

2) The 80 residents and V, an incorporated foundation, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court Decision 2006Du7577 Decided September 11, 2008. The Supreme Court, on June 12, 2008, did not have been reported production room since the mining right of this case was subject to the revised mining plan on June 12, 200, 1963, 3, and 26, and N and P mining rights did not commence its business since December 11, 1997, each ground for cancellation of mining rights exists since the commencement of the registered mining business, and the dignity of mining enterprises is considerably limited to the standard or average water level under the mining plan, so it is considerably difficult for the plaintiff to develop the mining resources near the mine area to achieve the original purpose of development of the mine area, such as high-quality small-scale quantity of water and high-level economic value, and it appears that there is considerable probability that the ground level and high-level soil contamination of the surrounding area would have been considerably high compared to the existing mining environment.

3) Accordingly, the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2008Nu26772) rendered a judgment revoking the disposition on November 28, 2008 on the ground that the disposition to alter the mining plan was an unlawful act of deviation from or abuse of discretion, in light of the circumstances presented by the Supreme Court on November 28, 2008, etc.

On May 14, 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

E. However, although the mining plan modification disposition issued on June 12, 200 was revoked, the Defendant’s approval of the mining plan issued on March 26, 1963 and that of July 21, 1976 shall continue to exist. The Defendant converted the mining right ledger of this case into the mining ledger in accordance with Article 3 of the Addenda to the Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 9982, Jan. 27, 201) on January 28, 201.

F. As X, an incorporated foundation located in Chungcheongbuk-gun D, was subject to the disposition of approving mining plans on November 18, 201 and December 14, 201, and on June 12, 2000, the disposition of approving mining plans on March 26, 1963 and the disposition of approving mining plans on July 21, 1973 was invalidated. Since the disposition of approving mining plans on June 12, 2000 was revoked, converting the mining rights register of this case into the mining register, the converting the mining rights register of this case into the mining register into the mining register was an administrative error, and the Cheongbuk-do Governor revoked the disposition of approving mining plans on March 26, 1963.

G. Accordingly, the Defendant, on February 22, 2012, converted the mining rights ledger of the instant case from the mining rights ledger to the mining rights ledger, and notified the Plaintiff of such fact on February 23, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

H. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection with the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on August 17, 2012. However, around June 2013, the Defendant’s converting the mining ledger of the instant mining right from the mining ledger to the mining ledger into the mining ledger was dismissed on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s converting the mining register of the instant mining right into the mining ledger into the mining ledger did not affect the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations, and thus, cannot be subject to an administrative appeal. The Plaintiff was served with a written ruling on June 19, 2013. [Grounds for recognition]

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

(i) the first argument;

The Mining Register and the Mining Register are determined according to whether the mining right concerned is the extracting right or the exploring right, and the exploring right and the extracting right are divided into whether the mining plan has been authorized, and the mining plan authorization right has been granted to the Mayor/Do governor. In other words, the defendant is merely converting the Mining Register from the Mining Register to the Mining Register in accordance with the judgment of the Cheongbuk-do Do governor that the approval of the mining plan was revoked on March 26, 1963, so it does not constitute an administrative disposition.

(ii) the second argument;

Even if the Defendant’s converting the mining ledger of the instant case into the mining ledger from the mining ledger constitutes an administrative disposition, the Plaintiff filed an objection on August 17, 2012, which was 90 days after the expiration of 90 days from February 24, 2012 from the date on which the written disposition of the instant case was served, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it did not comply with the filing period.

B. Determination

1) As to the first argument

A) The issue of whether certain acts of an administrative agency can be the object of an appeal cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In specific cases, an administrative disposition is an act that directly affects the rights and obligations of the public as an enforcement of law with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency as the subject of public authority. Considering the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form, and procedure of such act, substantial relation between the act and disadvantage suffered by interested parties such as the other party, and the principle of administration by the rule of law and the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the pertinent act, etc., the plaintiff cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition against the plaintiff 208Du167, Nov. 18, 2010, under Article 96 of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "Mining Industry Act") and Article 96 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2427, Mar. 23, 2013). 201).

2) According to Article 95 of the Mining Industry Act as to the second argument, in cases where an administrative agency fails to notify the period of request for a trial pursuant to Article 27(6) and (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, an administrative appeal may be filed within 180 days from the date of the disposition.

In light of the records of evidence No. 5, the plaintiff may file an objection within 180 days from the date of the disposition of this case, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the period for filing an appeal is not specified, and there is no other evidence to support that the defendant knew the plaintiff of the period for filing an appeal, the plaintiff may file an objection. However, since the plaintiff filed an objection on August 17, 2013 within 180 days from the date of the disposition of this case, which was within 180 days from the date of the disposition of this case, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's objection was filed within the period for filing the appeal, and it is lawful, and it is apparent that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on September 13, 2013, which is within 90 days from the date of receiving the written judgment, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The approval of the mining plan of June 12, 200 and the approval of the mining plan of March 26, 1963 and the approval of the mining plan of July 21, 1976 are not substantially changed, but merely adding N and P mining rights to the mining right of this case, even if the approval of the mining plan of June 12, 200 was revoked, the approval of the mining plan of March 26, 1963 and the approval of the mining plan of July 21, 1976 still continue to remain effective.

Even if the approval of the mining plan of March 26, 1963 and the approval of the mining plan of July 21, 1976 were absorbed into the approval of the mining plan of June 12, 200, and the approval of the mining plan of June 12, 200, as long as the judgment of revocation was affirmed by an appeal litigation as to the approval of the mining plan of June 12, 200, this is retroactively null and void as it did not exist from the beginning. Thus, the approval of the mining plan of March 26, 1963 and the approval of the mining plan of July 21, 1976 are restored to the effect of a valid disposition without any separate administrative act.

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Where a subsequent disposition is rendered with a substantial modification of the main part of the prior disposition, the prior disposition becomes void, barring any special circumstances, however, the existence of the subsequent disposition does not necessarily lead to the absence of a prior disposition, and where it is merely a minor modification of only a part of the content of the prior disposition, the prior disposition cannot be deemed extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du20782, 20799, Dec. 13, 2012).

2) Circumstances, i.e., situations that can be seen by comprehensively considering the entire arguments in Gap evidence 11: ① the approval of mining plan on March 26, 1963 and the data that can verify the detailed contents of the approval of mining plan on July 21, 1976; thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the approval of mining plan on June 12, 200 is the same as the approval of mining plan or the revised approval of mining plan on June 12, 200; ② The contents of the approved mining plan on June 12, 200 include the instant mining right and N and P mining rights on the premise that the mining plan was developed into one mine, and the mining plan on June 16, 200, which is substantially included in the existing mining plan on the condition that the existing mining plan was revised by 16.1.6 percent of the mining plan on July 21, 1976, and the previous mining plan was revised by 205.6 percent of the mining plan.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the mining right of this case was not authorized as a mining plan under the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 9982, Jan. 27, 2010) on the ground that the authorization of the mining plan of March 26, 1963 and the authorization of the alteration of the mining plan of July 21, 1976 became null and void, is legitimate. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Awards and decorations for judges;

Judges Kang Jeong-hee

Judges Jeon Sung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.