(a) Effect of the revocation of idle mining rights without making the prior written notification under Article 2265 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy;

(b) The validity of the revocation of an earlier application for the establishment of mining rights after the revocation of mining rights;

A. In a case where an earlier application for the establishment of a mining right is filed pursuant to Article 36 subparagraph 1 of the former Mining Industry Act (Act No. 2492 of Feb. 7, 73), the revocation of the revocation is erroneous.

B. Even if an idle mining right was not given prior notice by the summary of adjustment of the idle mining right before cancellation of the mining right, the cancellation disposition is not unlawful.

Article 36 of the Mining Industry Act, Article 41 of the Mining Industry Act, and public notice on the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 2265

Habaki

Minister of Commerce and Energy

Seoul High Court Decision 67Gu18 delivered on July 13, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal by the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs of appeal by the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

According to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer and the defendant's assistant intervenor's representative, and according to the original judgment, the defendant revoked the mining right registered in the name of the non-party, on the ground that the defendant did not commence the business within the period stipulated in Article 41 (1) of the Mining Industry Act, and then registered its revocation. On January 29, 1966, the plaintiff filed an earlier application for the establishment of the mining right of the same kind of mineral with respect to the same mining area. Accordingly, the defendant revoked the revocation of the mining right as of August 24, 1966 by the non-party's objection, and restored the mining right under the name of the non-party.

However, according to Article 36 subparagraph 1 of the Mining Industry Act, if a mining right holder violates Article 41 of the same Act, the competent Minister may cancel the mining right, and Article 41 (1) of the same Act provides that the mining right holder shall commence the business within one year from the date of establishment of the mining right or transfer of the mining right, while Article 41 (2) of the same Act provides that if the mining right holder cannot commence the business within the above period due to unavoidable reasons, the period shall be set and the reasons shall be attached, and if the mining right holder fails to commence the business within one year from the date of registration, the competent Minister may cancel the mining right pursuant to Article 36 (1) of the same Act, so long as the mining right holder fails to obtain the approval of the competent Minister within one year from the date of registration, the competent Minister is entitled to cancel the mining right under Article 36 (1) of the same Act. Thus, even if the mining right holder fails to obtain the permission of the competent Minister within one year from the date of registration of the right to access from the military authority, the mining right holder shall not obtain the permission of 20.

In addition, according to the summary of the reorganization of idle mining rights under Article 2265 of the Notice of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, each local minister shall give written advance notice to the mining right holder concerned prior to the cancellation of idle mining rights. In this case, even if there was no prior written notice as stipulated in the above summary prior to the cancellation of the valid mining rights before December 30, 1965, the above summary is merely an internal provision of the administrative agency's internal procedure and there was no provision based on the Mining Industry Act for the careful consideration of the cancellation of the valid mining rights. Thus, even if the defendant did not give the prior notice as stipulated in the above summary, even if he did not issue the prior notice as to the cancellation of the mining rights as of December 30, 1965, it cannot be said that such a disposition is unlawful or invalid.

Therefore, the reason why the mining right holder did not commence business within one year is that the mining area location was not permitted by the defendant, or that the defendant did not make prior written notification under the above reorganization outline, considering the fact that he did not make prior written notification, if he did not cancel the mining right before the new interested party was made, or if he had cancelled the disposition of cancellation before the new interested party was made after the cancellation was made, he could not have restored the mining right. However, in this case where the plaintiff was an interested party due to the legitimate filing of the earlier application against the mining area as of January 19, 1966 after the defendant revoked the revocation disposition as of August 24, 1966, and thus, the measure that the defendant restored the mining right under the name of the non-party cannot be said to be an illegal disposition that infringed upon the plaintiff's earlier application. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Kimchim (Presiding Judge)