[1] Whether an application for modification of mining plans may be rejected if necessary for the significant public interest (affirmative), and the criteria for its determination

[2] The case holding that a non-authorization disposition for mining plan modification is legitimate on the grounds that the area planned for mining is located in the area of the Dobong-gu, the first sale of the old-gu, the sale of which is the first sale and thus worthy of preserving the surrounding natural landscape and that there is a concern over the occurrence of pollution, such as drinking water pollution by residents

[1] According to Articles 47 and 47-2 of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 1997), Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16452 of Jun. 30, 199), Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 91 of Dec. 2, 199), and Article 90 (1) of the former Forestry Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy of Apr. 10, 1997), where the location and method of lighting are not the same as the previous mining plan, the approval of the mining plan is basically to examine the contents of the revised mining plan in terms of rationality, feasibility and safety, but where the mining plan in question entails damage to the natural landscape, noise and dust, and the degree of damage to the natural environment, it is not necessarily necessary to determine the scale of national land and water pollution.

[2] The case holding that a non-authorization disposition for mining plan modification is legitimate on the grounds that the area scheduled for mining is located in the area of the Dobong-gu, which is the first selling part of the area, and is worth preserving the surrounding natural landscape and is likely to cause pollution, such as drinking water pollution by residents

[1] Articles 47 and 47-2 of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 1997); Article 41 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16452 of Jun. 30, 199); Article 19 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Mining Industry Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 91 of Dec. 2, 1999); Article 90 (1) of the former Forestry Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 5232 of Apr. 10, 1997); Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 47, 47-2, and 47-1 of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 197); Article 19 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Mining Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 95194 of Jun. 19, 19, 19999)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1025 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 121), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7726 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1574 delivered on May 27, 1993) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu4854 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1914), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1947 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1910), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6113 delivered on September 15, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3429).

Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Do Governor of Chungcheongbuk-do (Attorney Song Man-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea-U.S. M.T. (Attorneys Jeon Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Gu2697 delivered on February 13, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely).

According to Articles 47 and 47-2 of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 1997), Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16452 of Jun. 30, 199), Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 91 of Dec. 2, 199), and Article 90 (1) of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 5232 of Apr. 10, 1997), where the location and method of lighting are not the same as the previous mining plan, the authorization to revise the mining plan is basically to examine the contents of the altered plan in terms of rationality, business feasibility and safety, but if the mining plan entails damage to forests, noise and dust generated therefrom, degree of pollution, etc., it is not always necessary to determine that the plan is likely to infringe on the environment, 9719.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff applied for the authorization of modification to the mining plan of this case which included matters damaged by different mining area, mining method, and mining size from the mining plan of this case in 1983 (such as error, error, 279, 280 pages, etc. of the lower court on January 29, 196) but the Defendant’s disposal of the mining site of this case as of April 6 of the same year, after consultation with the head of the Mayang-gu, the competent government office for forest damage, was located in the 1st selling zone, and adjacent to the area, and thus, it is worth preserving the natural landscape, such as the mining ground of this case’s mining ground of this case’s planned mining ground of this case’s planned mining ground of this case’s planned mining ground of this case’s planned mining ground of this case’s planned mining ground of this case’s planned mining ground of this case’s planned mining ground of this case’s planned mining ground of this case’s surrounding area.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are fully acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence, omission of judgment, or contradiction in the reasoning, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)