The meaning of Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Business Act that "in case of failure to comply with an on-site investigation and attendance order two times, it shall be deemed that there is no objection to the establishment of mining right concerned"

Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Act provides that if the application area overlaps with the application area of another person for the establishment of mining rights for different types of mineral mining areas, the mining right holder of different types of mineral shall be deemed to have no objection to the establishment of the mining right in question if he/she fails to comply with the witness order for a field investigation on two occasions. This is merely a provision on whether a mining right holder of different types of mineral rights has lost his/her right to objection to the same mining area, and thus, if the other person is absent on a field investigation on two occasions, it cannot be viewed that he/she receives duplicate mining rights application for the mining area without complying with the requirements

Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mining Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

The head of the Mining Registration Office

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu839 delivered on September 14, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of grounds of appeal filed within a legitimate period).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts in light of the following facts: (a) on July 21, 1981, 1981, the plaintiffs filed an application for the establishment of a tin mining right with respect to the Defendant on 124, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, the defendant, who is an agent of the above non-party, who is the representative of the plaintiff 1 and the above non-party who is the mining right holder, had the defendant attend the actual site and pointed out the male of each male in order to identify the relationship between the asbestos black mining right in the non-party's name (registration number omitted) prior to the plaintiffs' above application, since the application for the establishment of a tin mining right had been already established with respect to Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yan-gun, the defendant found the facts in violation of evidence and records.

2. According to the Mining Industry Act, a mining right is the right to mine and acquire registered minerals and other minerals buried in the same mineral deposit (Article 5). Two or more mining rights shall not be established in the same area except for certain exceptions to different kinds of minerals (Article 24). If the application area overlaps with the mining area of the same kind of mineral at the time of application, the establishment of mining rights for the overlapping area shall not be permitted (Article 26). In this case, different kinds of minerals buried in the same mineral deposit shall be regarded as the same mineral deposit (Article 28). According to the above facts acknowledged by the court below, it shall be deemed that asbestos mines of the above non-party registered in the same mineral deposit are buried in the same mineral deposit, and it shall not be permitted for the establishment of mining rights for the same kind of mineral deposit with the same mineral deposit, and it shall not be permitted for the non-party to whom the establishment of mining rights for the same kind of mineral right is established under the provisions of the Mining Industry Act for which the non-party to the above mining right holder has already been established for 16 months.

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)