The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff filed an application for the establishment of exploration rights for C (hereinafter “instant area”) with the Defendant of the purpose of gold and silver, and that the Defendant rendered a disposition of denying the above application (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that the management agency, which consulted with the public interest, consents to the establishment of mining rights on the ground of the conservation of the natural environment in D Do parks, was not subject to the foregoing disposition. In so doing, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s establishment of mining deposit for the purpose of the field survey and mineral deposit under Article 15(5) of the Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2442, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 16 of the Guidelines for Mining Business Treatment (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy No. 201267, Mar. 26, 2017).

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The Mining Industry Act (Act No. 9982, Jan. 27, 2010) prescribes the term of existence of a mining right by separating it into the exploration right and the extraction right according to the stage of mine development, and determines the term differently, and confirms the existence of a mineral or its economic feasibility through the exploration of minerals in accordance with the exploration plan.