1. The judgment in claim allowance proceedings (No. 2017) No. 503 of April 16, 2018 shall be approved by this Court.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The summary of the decision is that the plaintiff developed a mining area to occupy the real estate in C mine pursuant to the contract between the debtor B and developed a mining area, but did not receive the service cost of KRW 522,317,501 up to now. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the above service cost claims were secured by the secured claim, and that the mining extracting rights (the plaintiff was exercising a lien against the mine", but the plaintiff reported the lien on the mining extracting rights as the rehabilitation security right and confirmed confirmation thereof. As such, the above "right of retention" was corrected as it appears that the mining was a clerical error in the "right of retention" on the mining right.

Therefore, the above lien should be recognized as a rehabilitation security right against the debtor B.

Judgment

Pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Mining Industry Act, the extracting rights cannot be the object of rights or exercised by other persons except for inheritance, transfer, establishment of mining concessions or mortgages, disposition on default, or compulsory execution. Thus, the right of retention cannot be exercised against the mining extracting rights. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment in claim allowance proceedings for rehabilitation security rights as of April 16, 2018, which held that the Plaintiff’s right to the mining right cannot be deemed to have been acquired solely on the ground that the mining right cannot be deemed to be the object of a lien, and that the Plaintiff’s right to the mining right cannot be deemed to have been acquired solely on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied real estate located in a mining area. Therefore, the judgment in claim proceedings for rehabilitation security rights as to