Whether a de facto possession of ore in unlawful mining possession is protected in violation of the mining regulations.

It shall be illegal in violation of the mining laws and regulations that extract a mining area without obtaining the registration of the transfer of mining rights to the mining area. However, the de facto possession of the mining area or the mining area shall be protected, and any person who has unlawfully occupied and infringed the mining area shall be obliged to return it.

Article 204 of the Civil Act, Articles 39 and 40 of the Mining Industry Act

Plaintiff

Si Interest Mining Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (66A14335) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 66A1435)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's attorney shall deliver to the plaintiff 40 tons (22gs per ton of the base wind, 150gs per ton of the base wind, 150gs per annum, 15 percent per ton of the base wind, 15 percent per annum) that was extracted from the North-Jak mine located in the North-Jakdong-ri, Gangwon-do, the lower court's attorney.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The defendant¡¯s attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1 and testimony of the non-party No. 1 and 2, the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2 were co-owned by the non-party No. 3 (representative), the non-party No. 4, and the non-party No. 5. The non-party No. 6 purchased the above shares of the non-party No. 3, the non-party No. 4, and the non-party No. 6 and the non-party No. 9 were delivered to the non-party No. 3 who was in possession of the mine as of Jan. 8, 1966 and thereafter the plaintiff possessed and managed the mine as the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2 were the non-party No. 6's non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2 were the plaintiff's. 15 and the non-party No.

The defendant's legal representative refers to the right to mine and acquire registered minerals within a registered land zone, and even if the plaintiff was delivered the mine of this case from the non-party 3, as long as the plaintiff did not obtain the transfer registration, the plaintiff does not have the right to mine as well as the ownership or possession right to the mineral itself from the mine which is delivered the mining right subject to the mining right, and the defendant purchased this tin from the non-party 7, the representative of the joint mining right, and completed its transfer execution, so the plaintiff's claim for this case is unfair, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this case is against the plaintiff's legal representative. Thus, since the plaintiff did not obtain the transfer registration of the mining right to this case, the plaintiff's mining area was delivered to the non-party 3, and it is against the mining law and illegal, or the plaintiff's actual state of possession of the tin's mining area or this case's mining area should not be accepted, and as long as the defendant's possession of the above tin was clearly found to have been returned to the plaintiff's above non-party 7.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the recovery of possession is legitimate, and thus, it will be accepted. As such, the original judgment is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Park Jong-su (Presiding Judge)