Limitations on disposition, such as cancellation of mining rights

Even if the mining right permitted by the competent Minister to the non-party is already permitted to apply to the non-party and thus should be revoked, the plaintiff who filed a duplicate application does not have any legal interest in infringing upon the permission for the mining right granted to the

Article 34 of the Mining Industry Act;

Sick Order et al.

Minister of Commerce and Energy

Seoul High Court Decision 61Do120 delivered on July 10, 1962

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs.

(1) According to Article 34 of the Mining Industry Act, if the competent Minister permits an application for mining due to mistake, the competent Minister shall cancel the mining permission or the mining right to correct the error, or dispose of the modification of the mining right. Therefore, if it is evident that the permission for heavy stone mining to the non-party, Kim Jong-sung was made by mistake as the competent Minister, if it is obvious that the permission for heavy stone mining to the non-party, the non-party, a person has already been aware of the same kind of mineral as the permitted mineral at the time of the application, and it is obvious that the defendant has already been made by mistake

그러나 기록에 의하여 원고의 주장사실을 보면 피고가 위에서 본 김기엽에게 대하여 동일 광구에다가 이미 남에게 출원을 허가한 광물과 같은 종류의 광물인 중정석에 관하여 광업권을 허가한 것은 1955년 11월 12일이었고 원고들이 같은 광구에 있는 금 은 텡그스텐에 관하여 광업출원을 한 것은 그 뒤인 1955년 12월 8일임이 명백하므로 필경 피고가 소외인 김기엽에게 착오로 인한 위의 광업권 허가를 할 당시에는 원고들은 아무러한 이해관계도 가지지 않았던 사람들일 뿐만 아니라 원심이 적법하게 확정한 사실에 의하면 원고가 본건 광구에 대하여 광업출원을 한 금 은 텡그스텐에 관하여는 이미 동일 광에 대하여 등록번호 3588및 15777로써 광업권이 허가되어 있어서 필경 원고도 중복된 광업출원을한 셈이므로 특별한 사정이 없는한 주무부장관이 광업법 제34조 에 의하여 그 잘못된 행정처분을 취소하건 말건 원고들로서는 그것을 주장하고 탓할만한 아무러한 법률상 이익이 없다할 것이다 이러한 취지에서 검토할 적에 논지가 지적하는 바와 같이 원심판결의 설명에는 미흡한 대목이 없지 않으나 그렇다고 원심 판결의 결과에 영향을 미칠만한 것은 되지 않는 것이므로 이 상고 논지는 배척하기로 한다

(2) Even if the administrative disposition on the second issue is not defective in itself, if there is a defect in the administrative disposition prior to the same purpose or the same right, the illegality shall be deemed succeeded. Therefore, since the permission disposition on the Kim Jong-sung was erroneous, the permission disposition on the additional registration of other minerals that the defendant issued after that disposition shall be deemed to be illegal. However, as seen in the above (1) above, if the plaintiffs had already been placed in a place where it is not possible for the plaintiffs to dispute the mining right permitted to Kim Jong-sung as the applicant at that time, the permission disposition on the change of the name of the mining right shall not be deemed to be a legal interest to dispute it. This conclusion does not change even if the plaintiffs applied for the mining right on the same mining area at the time of the defendant's permission on the change of the name of the mining right to Kim Jong-sung, even if the plaintiffs applied for the mining right on the same mineral in the same mining area.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed without merit. Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act prior to the amendment, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)