1. The part concerning the claim for cancellation of the registration of extinguishment of a mining right in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. GH on November 14, 2001 - to November 13, 2008, Gangnam-gun, Gangnam-gun, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, GH on November 14, 2001, GH on November 14, 2001, where the e-mail registration number of the disposition is located, and the e-mail area of the mining land PH on November 14, 2001 through November 13, 2008.

The Plaintiff is jointly owned with B and C the following mining rights registered on November 13, 2001 (hereinafter “mining rights of this case”).

On May 31, 2013, the Defendant extended the duration of the instant mining right by November 13, 2018.

B. The Defendant, on July 22, 2013, on the ground that “the joint mining right holder, such as the Plaintiff, did not commence a business (prospecting or mining) even after two years from the date of registration of the establishment of the mining industry” and was amended by Act No. 9982, Jan. 27, 2010.

E. The former Mining Industry Act (hereinafter “former Mining Industry Act”).

(1) In applying subparagraph 1 of Article 35 and Article 40(1), the revocation of the instant mining right (hereinafter “instant disposition”) shall be subject to the application of Article 35(1).

(C) On October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on the grounds that the pertinent mining right was extinguished by ex officio on the same day. However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on April 3, 2014. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence No. 10, 11, and No. 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Ex officio of the part seeking revocation of the registration of extinguishment of a mining right in the lawsuit of this case, we examine the legitimacy of the part seeking revocation of the registration of extinguishment of a mining right in the lawsuit of this case. The plaintiff's claim for this part is a result of claiming revocation of cancellation of registration under the Decree on the Registration of Mining, i.e., cancellation of cancellation of registration under the Decree on the Registration of Mining, and ultimately seek administrative disposition benefits against the administrative agency (see Supreme Court Decision 65Nu145, Apr. 6, 196), and the lawsuit seeking execution order for an administrative agency to take a certain administrative disposition is allowed under