Whether or not a contract for joint development of mining rights may be rescinded by the general provisions of the Civil Act

According to the provisions of Articles 29 and 26 of the Mining Industry Act, a joint development contract for a mining right is deemed a partnership agreement. Therefore, a joint development contract for a mining right can only request dissolution, withdrawal, or expulsion of other union members, and it is not possible to cancel a partnership agreement and to impose a duty to restore to the other party.

Articles 29 and 26 of the Mining Industry Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1057 Decided November 25, 1969

Attorney Gangnam-gu et al., Counsel for defendant

Respondent

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na2402 delivered on September 14, 1978

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The so-called partnership business contract is generally a partnership agreement under the Civil Act, and under Articles 29 and 26 of the Mining Industry Act, a joint mining right holder is deemed to have made a partnership agreement. In the partnership agreement, a joint mining right holder is deemed to have made a request for dissolution or withdrawal from a partnership or expulsion from other union members, and it is a case of party members to interpret that the partnership agreement cannot be cancelled and the other party shall not be obliged to restore it to the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da1057 delivered on November 25, 1969).

According to the records, the reason for the application of this case is that the applicant and the respondent enter into a partnership agreement that the respondent shall invest and jointly develop the coal mine of this case for which the applicant had mining rights, and then registered the respondent as joint mining right holder under the agreement that the respondent would increase the amount of investment, but the respondent again registered as the representative of the respondent, but the respondent did not comply with the agreement, and thus the respondent has cancelled the above development agreement, so it is clear that the respondent should cancel the registration of joint mining right holder and the representative of the respondent has reached an application for provisional disposition for the preservation of the execution, so the respondent should cancel the registration of joint mining right holder and the registration of the representative of the respondent. Thus, the theory of attacking original markets cannot be adopted on the premise that the above joint development agreement was not a joint development agreement.

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

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)