[1] The purport of Article 3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 14424 of December 8, 1994

[2] When the law based on administrative disposition was amended and enforced, whether the revised law and standard are appropriate (affirmative with qualification)

[3] The case holding that the amended Enforcement Decree of the Mining Act applies to an application for extension of the term of mining rights for mining right holders where the mining right holder's application for extension of the term of mining rights is before the enforcement of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Mining Act, or the expiration or extension of the term of mining right after the enforcement of the amended

[1] Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14424 of Dec. 8, 1994) which provides the requirements and procedures for the extension of the term of mining rights pursuant to delegation of Article 14(2) of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by the Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 1997) provides that the term of mining rights shall not be extended for three years retroactive from the date of application for the extension of the term of mining rights under the main sentence of subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14424 of Jun. 8, 1995). Article 3 provides that the term of mining rights shall not be extended for three years retroactive from the date of application for the extension of the term of mining rights under the provisions of Article 34 of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by the Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 199).

[2] Even in cases where the relevant statute is amended, unless otherwise specified in the transitional provision, administrative disposition shall be based on the amended law that takes effect at the time of the disposition, unless otherwise specified in the transitional provision. Even in cases where the amended law provides a legal effect more unfavorable than the previous one in relation to the property rights of the people with regard to the existing facts or legal relations subject to the application of the amended law, if such facts or legal relations are not already completed or terminated before the enforcement of the amended law, they shall not be deemed an infringement of property rights by retroactive legislation prohibited under the Constitution. In relation to the application of such amended law, there is room for limiting the application of the amended law in order to protect the people’s trust in the existence of the statute prior to the amendment if it is deemed that the public’s trust is more

[3] The case holding that all mining right holders' acquisition of mining rights and approval of suspension of their business shall not be deemed to retroactively apply the Enforcement Decree of the amended Mining Act [the Enforcement Decree of the amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14424 of Dec. 8, 1994, and the Addenda (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14424 of Dec. 8, 1995)] before enforcement, but the expiration of the term shall be deemed to be April 30, 1996 after the enforcement date of the amended Enforcement Decree, and it shall be clearly that the extension of the term was made on Jan. 30, 1996 after the enforcement date of the amended Enforcement Decree, and that the provision of the amended Enforcement Decree shall not be deemed to have been applied to the extension of the term of mining rights retroactively to the facts or legal relations which were completed or terminated, and that the application of the amended Enforcement Decree No. 95 shall not be deemed to have been made more favorable to mining right holders' interests than the revised Enforcement Decree No. 196 of the amended Enforcement Decree.

[1] Articles 14(2), 34, and 99 of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 1997), Article 3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14424 of Dec. 8, 1994), Article 3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act, Article 3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act, Article 3(1)1 of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14424 of Dec. 8, 1994), Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 1 of the former Mining Industry Act / [3] Articles 14(2), 34, and 9 of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 197), Article 3(1)4(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1314(1)1)1 of the former Act)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu77 delivered on May 2, 1984 (Gong1984, 1145), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13813 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 474), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4390 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1001), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1087 delivered on November 21, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 82), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10877 delivered on August 20, 196 (Gong196Ha, 2874), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu198298 delivered on March 27, 1998 (Gong2981, Dec. 198)

Plaintiff

Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu29283 delivered on July 24, 1997

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 brief).

1. On the grounds for disapproval of permission for extension of the term of mining right

Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14424 of Dec. 8, 1994, the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14424 of Dec. 8, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the amended Act") which provides for the requirements and procedures for the extension of the term of mining rights pursuant to delegation of Article 14(2) of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by the Act No. 5454 of Dec. 13, 1997, hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the amended Act". Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act provides for an exception to the extension of the term of mining rights for three years retroactive from the date of application for the extension of the term of mining rights, or for three years retroactive from the date of application for the extension of the term of mining rights under Article 34 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mining Industry Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14495 of the Act).

Therefore, under the above provision of the amended Enforcement Decree, a mining right holder cannot extend the term of a mining right regardless of whether the mining right holder has been exempted from an obligation under the law due to business suspension or mining, etc., or whether the production record falls short of the production record or the reason for failure to report mineral production, unless the mining right holder still remains in the part of the application form for the extension of the term of a mining right under Article 6 (1) Item 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Industry and Economy No. 11 of May 6, 1995), even if the part of the application form for the extension of the term of a mining right under Article 6 (1) Item 3 of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Act still remains, the term of a form is mainly formal for the purpose of raising administrative efficiency based on the simplification, standardization and scientificization of affairs (Article 1 and Article 70 of the Administrative Regulations).

Therefore, in this case, although the plaintiff applied for permission to extend the term of existence on January 30, 1996 on the ground that business suspension was approved for the mining right of this case (registration number omitted), the decision of the court below that the decision of the court below was legitimate as to the disposition of this case which rejected the application as of February 1 of the same year on the ground that business suspension under the amended enforcement decree does not constitute an exception to the refusal of the extension of the term of mining right, and there is no error of law such as erroneous interpretation or application of the law as alleged by the plaintiff.

2. As to the application of the amended Enforcement Decree

In principle, an administrative disposition shall be based on the amended Act and its subordinate statute in force at the time of the disposition, unless otherwise specified in the transitional provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu1087, Nov. 21, 1995; 96Nu19772, Mar. 27, 1998). In a case where the amended Act and subordinate statutes provide a legal effect more unfavorable than the previous one in relation to the property rights of the people while being subject to existing facts or legal relations, if such facts or legal relations are not completed or terminated before the enforcement of the amended Act, it shall not be deemed as a property infringement by retroactive legislation prohibited under the Constitution, and in relation to the application of such amended Act, there is room to limit the application of the amended Act in order to protect the people’s trust in the existence of the preceding Act and subordinate statutes more protected than the public interest demand for the application of the amended Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff's acquisition of the mining right of this case and the approval of suspension of its business are all made before the enforcement date as of June 8, 1995, but the expiration of the term is made on April 30, 1996, which is after the enforcement date of the amended Enforcement Decree, and it is clear that the application for extension of the term was made on January 30, 1996, and the application for extension of the term of mining right of this case is also made after the enforcement date, and it cannot be deemed that the enforcement Decree of the amended Enforcement Decree is applied retroactively to the facts or legal relations already completed or terminated. When the acquisition of the mining right of this case and the suspension of business are authorized, the plaintiff's trust in the continuation of the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree of the amended Enforcement Decree cannot be deemed to have been induced by the State, and the application for extension of the term of mining right of this case cannot be deemed to have been made after the enforcement date of the amended Enforcement Decree, and the application for extension of the term of this case is obviously 9-15.

Therefore, the court below's decision that Article 3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Amendment applies to the plaintiff's application for permission to extend the mining right of this case is just, and there is no error of law such as erroneous interpretation or application of statutes as alleged by the plaintiff.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)