Whether permission for mining rights for applicants is automatically null and void where applications for the establishment of mining rights are overlapped;

A. Although the permission of mining rights for later applicants against Article 20 of the Mining Industry Act is erroneous, the permission of mining rights for later applicants is not void as a matter of course.

B. Unless there are special circumstances, two different mining rights cannot be established within the same mining area. Thus, even if the defendant's disposition rejecting an earlier application of the plaintiff is revoked, the establishment of a mining right against the plaintiff cannot be permitted. Thus, there is no legal interest to revoke the above rejection disposition of the defendant.

Articles 19 and 20 of the Mining Industry Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Nu11 Decided September 8, 1964

[Judgment of the court below]

The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall record the litigation performers.

Kangwon Industrial Co., Ltd. and four others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu727 delivered on October 16, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 20 of the Mining Industry Act, in cases where applications for the establishment of mining rights for the same kind of mineral overlap in the same area, the filing date and time of the application shall be the first priority. Since permission for mining rights in violation of this Act shall be illegal, the applicant for a prior application may not be deemed to have been aware of the filing date and the correction thereof through an objection or appeal litigation against this permission, but the permission disposition shall not be deemed to be null and void automatically (see Supreme Court Decision 64Nu11 delivered on September 8, 1964).

And according to Article 19 of the same Act, two or more mining rights cannot be established in the same area.

However, this kind of mineral shall not apply to cases where there is no difficulty in operating the mining for each type of mineral or in the case of Article 31 (In the case of adjacent mining areas).

According to the records, as to the mining area of this case filed by the plaintiff jointly with the non-party, the defendant is the non-party who is the subsequent applicant with permission for the establishment of a mining right on December 5, 1955 and the mining right on which 20 years have passed since the plaintiff is also the person who is the non-party, so there is no problem in operating the mining business for each of the cases where the mining right is in existence, and there is no reason to view that there is no problem in the establishment of a mining right again within the same mining area pursuant to the prohibition of double mining right establishment. Therefore, even if the defendant's disposition rejecting the plaintiff's earlier application is revoked, the establishment of a mining right against the plaintiff is not permitted, and there

In this regard, there is no argument that the judgment of the court below is justifiable and there is no argument that the judgment of the court below is a misunderstanding of legal principles.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the 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)