(a) Commencement of the business under Article 41 of the Mining Industry Act;

B. The competent Minister does not necessarily require the mining right holder to obtain prior suspension of commencement of business or authorization for modification of a plan for commencement of business in cancelling mining rights.

A. If a mining right holder intends to start work in accordance with Article 41 of the former Mining Industry Act (Act No. 234 of Dec. 23, 51), he/she shall start work in accordance with the authorized starting date. Therefore, even if Gap mining area and Eul mining area are able to merge with different mining areas and are engaged in another merger work, as long as the separate starting date for each mining area is authorized, it cannot be said that Eul mining area has started work in relation to Eul mining area.

B. In cancelling mining rights, the competent Minister does not necessarily require the mining right holder to obtain prior suspension of commencement of business or permission for change of business plan.

Article 41 of the Mining Industry Act, Article 42 of the Mining Industry Act, Article 36 of the Mining Industry Act

Limited Partnership Companies, Doz. Mining Offices

Minister of Commerce and Energy

Kimcheon-chan Industries Company

Seoul High Court Decision 68Gu425 delivered on December 16, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) We examine the ground of appeal No. 1 of the Plaintiff's Round.

According to the provisions of Articles 41 and 42 of the Mining Industry Act and Article 41 of the same Act, a mining right holder shall start a mining business within one year from the registration date of the establishment or transfer of a mining right, and a mining right holder shall not start a mining business without the authorization of the competent Minister, so it is reasonable to interpret that a mining right holder shall start a mining business pursuant to Article 41 of the Mining Industry Act, so it shall be reasonable that a mining area should start a business without the authorization of the competent Minister, so it shall not be recognized that there has been a commencement of a business by the above authorized commencement date of a mining area under Article 24707 as a legitimate mining right, so the court below rejected the plaintiff's request for a mining right holder with the purport that there was no commencement of a business under Article 41 (1) of the Mining Industry Act or extension of Article 41 (2) of the same Act, and even if the mining area and No. 24708 are possible and combined, the mining area and two adjacent mining areas shall not be accepted separately from the above 470 mining area.

(2) The ground of appeal No. 2 is examined as to the ground of appeal by the plaintiff Kim Jae-in, the plaintiff Kim Jong-chul. Even though the mining right to the mining area was eligible for the postponement of commencement of operations under Article 41 (2) of the Mining Industry Act, and was authorized to obtain the authorization of modification of the commencement of operations under Article 42 of the same Act, in such a case, the competent Minister shall not be construed to have the right to call attention to the above commencement of operations or the authorization of modification of the commencement of operations under Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Mining Industry Act before the commencement of operations, such as the theory of lawsuit, in order to cancel the mining right, the above commencement of operations or modification of the commencement of operations, and even according to the provision of Article 42 (3) of the Mining Industry Act, the competent Minister shall not be deemed to have violated the defendant's free decision to cancel the alteration of the commencement of operations under Article 41 (1) of the same Act and there is no violation of the defendant's free decision to cancel the alteration of the mining right under Article 10 (10).

(3) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court