[1] The case holding that the suspension of coal mining operations due to the failure to obtain permission to damage a forest does not have a proximate causal relation with the construction of the dam and that the mining rights do not

[2] The scope of application of the compensation provision under Article 39 of the Mining Industry Act

[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that permission for forest damage can be refused at a discretion pursuant to the necessity of public interest, considering the current state, location, surrounding circumstances, etc. of land to be applied by the head of the competent administrative agency, so even if permission for forest damage was no longer possible due to the failure to obtain permission for forest damage, it cannot be deemed that there is a proximate causal relation with the construction of the dam by the

[2] Under Article 39 of the Mining Industry Act and Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act, on the basis of the provision on compensation for losses under the provision on compensation for losses, there shall not be analogical interpretation that the head of the relevant agency should either revoke mining rights or compensate for the portion not subject to the revocation of mining rights or reduction of mining area.

[1] Article 39 of the Mining Industry Act, Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act / [2] Article 39 of the Mining Industry Act, Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act, Article 3 of the

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Chungcheongnam-do (Law Office of Daejeon, Attorney Kim Yong-deok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 95Na4092 delivered on April 16, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on its reasoning. The plaintiff applied for damage to forests to Boan-gun in order to mine coal in 160 hectares of the remaining mining area of the plaintiff, but the above mining area was rejected due to water pollution expected to cause water pollution, so the defendant is obligated to pay compensation for losses to the above remaining mining area. On the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is obligated to pay compensation for losses to the above remaining mining area, since permission for damage to the forest can be refused at a discretion as necessary for public interest considering the current state, location, surrounding circumstances, etc. of the land subject to application by Boan-gun, which is the competent administrative agency. Thus, even if the plaintiff was unable to conduct mining operations any longer due to the failure to obtain forest damage permission, it is reasonable to conclude that it cannot be said that there is a proximate causal relation with the construction of Boan-gun Dam constructed by the defendant, or that the exercise of mining rights is unreasonably restricted, and it cannot be concluded that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above construction and exercise of mining rights.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Upon examining the evidence established by the court below based on the records, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant would later pay compensation for the remaining mining area around September 1992, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the plaintiff's assertion that it is considerably difficult to use the remaining mining right for its original purpose because part of the mining right purchased by consultation, the court below held that the time evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the remaining mining right of the plaintiff was considerably difficult to use it for its original purpose, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. It is reasonable to reject it. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to theory, such as incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment or misapprehension of legal principles, and according to Article 39 of the Mining Industry Act and Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act, the Minister of Energy and Energy (the current Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy) may, if deemed that the designation of the relevant agency, the important construction site constructed by the State or local government, and the mining right or mineral mining in its adjacent area cause trouble to the project, the Minister of Land, Industry and Energy may cancel the mining right or reduce mining area, but it cannot be accepted as to the remaining portion of the mining area for which the head of the relevant agency or local government designated and publicly notified the head of the agency or its adjacent area should not use.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)