[1] The scope and requirements of standing to sue in a lawsuit seeking revocation of permission for establishment of mining rights

[2] The legal nature of the authorization of mining plan or the authorization of modification under the former Mining Industry Act (=a discretionary act) and the standard for determining whether to refuse it

[1] The purport of the relevant laws or regulations is to protect the land or buildings, the owner or occupant of which is likely to cause direct and significant economic or environmental damage due to the disposition of permission for the establishment of mining rights and the follow-up procedures related to the development of mines, or the individual interests that can possess land or buildings and live in pleasant lives without causing any property or environmental damage exceeding the tolerance limit compared to previous convictions, so the owner or occupant of the land or buildings, or the interested parties, and residents may be recognized to have standing to seek revocation of the disposition by proving that the disposition of permission for the establishment of mining rights and the development of mines accordingly violate or are likely to violate property or environmental interests exceeding the tolerance limit compared to previous convictions.

[2] Approval of mining plan or approval of modification under the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 6612 of Jan. 19, 2002) shall belong to the discretionary action of the administrative agency, and when it is recognized that there is a need for significant public interest in terms of the preservation of the environment, such as the rationality and stability of the contents of mining plan and the aspects of stability and stability of the mining plan, pollution of water and soil accompanying the mining plan, and the exhaustion of groundwater, it may be refused to grant approval of mining plan or approval of modification. Such determination may be based on whether there is a significant concern for infringement of the public interest in light of social norms by taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents, scale, and

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 12 (2) of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 6612 of Jan. 19, 2002) (see current Article 10 (2)), Article 29 (1) (see current Article 24 (1)), and Article 39 (see current Article 34) / [2] Article 47 (see current Article 42) of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 6612 of Jan. 19, 2002)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 98Du6555 delivered on April 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 1317)

Plaintiff 1 and 652 (Attorney Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Do Governor of Chungcheongbuk-do and one other

continental Mining Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Jeong Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu5323 delivered on April 12, 2006

The part of the lower judgment pertaining to the permission for establishment of mining rights as of October 12, 200 and the permission for modification of mining plan as of June 12, 2000 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the permission for establishment of each mining right

A. On October 12, 200 each of the permissions for the establishment of mining rights as of October 12, 200

Even if a third party is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, if the legal interest protected by the administrative disposition is infringed by the law, it shall be entitled to a decision of the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of the administrative disposition. The legal interest refers to a case where there is individual, direct, and specific interest protected by the relevant laws and regulations and the relevant laws and regulations, and if a general, indirect, and abstract interest of the general public is generated as a result of protecting the public interest, it shall not be deemed that there is a legal interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2006Du14001, Dec. 22, 2006).

In full view of the provisions of Articles 10, 12(2), 29(1), 29-2, 39, 48, 83(2), 84 through 87, 88(2) and 91(1) of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 6612, Jan. 19, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply), which are the grounds for the permission for establishment of mining rights or related Acts and subordinate statutes, and the provisions of Articles 1, 5(1)2 and 7 of the former Mining Industry Act, which are the grounds for the permission for establishment of mining rights, and the purport of the above Acts and subordinate statutes or related Acts and subordinate statutes is to obtain permission for establishment of mining rights, and to seek cancellation of such dispositions from the owners of land or buildings which are likely to suffer property damage or to suffer property damage due to their own or environmental harm by comparing them with those of the owners of land or buildings, which are likely to suffer property damage by the permission for establishment of mining rights or subsequent procedures for establishment of mining rights.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not recognize the standing to sue of the Plaintiffs and dismissed the lawsuit on this part on the ground that the disposition of permission to establish a mining right does not affect the rights or interests of the third party, and the Mining Industry Act does not protect individual, specific, and direct interests of the Plaintiffs. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on standing to sue of the third party, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

B. On July 17, 1935, as well as on January 5, 1984, as to permission for establishment of mining rights

Among the permission for the establishment of each of the instant mining rights, the mining rights No. 11930 registration number around July 17, 1935, and the mining rights No. 58664 registration number around January 5, 1984 were each disposition for the establishment of mining rights. Each of the above mining rights is registered in the mining ledger at the time of the execution of each of the above dispositions and is open to the general public and is being developed in some areas. While each of the above mining rights has been registered in the mining register at the time of the execution of each of the above dispositions, the plaintiffs who were residents who owned or occupied and lived in the mining area or neighboring land, buildings, etc. within the mining area at the time of the lapse of 65 or more years from the above dispositions to the filing of the instant objection, were aware of or could have easily known the establishment of each of the above mining rights, and the filing period or the filing period of each of the above dispositions under the former Mining Industry Act, which could have been claimed for cancellation of each of the above dispositions, is unlawful.

Therefore, the lower court’s decision that dismissed this part of the lawsuit is justifiable in its result, and thus, the ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. As to the change of mining plan and the disposition

The approval of mining plan or revised approval under the former Mining Industry Act shall be deemed to belong to the discretionary action of the administrative agency, and if it is deemed necessary for the significant public interest in terms of the preservation of the environment, such as the rationality, feasibility and stability of the contents of the mining plan, the pollution of water and soil, and the exhaustion of underground water, which may involve the mining plan, it may be refused. This can be determined by considering all the circumstances such as the contents, scale and method of the project specified in the mining plan and its impact on the environment (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du6555 delivered on April 25, 200, etc.).

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the instant mining plan modification disposition was lawful, since the mining plan modification disposition of this case was not erroneous in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, even if the mining plan modification disposition of this case did not violate the mining plan modification disposition, and even if the mining body’s dignity is so low as to be less economic value, such circumstance alone does not lead to the deviation and abuse of discretionary power, and it is difficult to view that the instant mining plan modification disposition of this case was lawful.

However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s measures for the following reasons.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the following circumstances can be revealed. In other words, the mining right No. 11930, which is the object of the authorization disposition of this case, was no longer reported on production records since the first mining plan was approved on March 26, 1963, and the mining right No. 69419 and 69420, which is also a ground for cancellation of each mining right since its registration was registered on December 11, 1997. The dignity of the mineral of this case is considerably likely to cause damage to the mine of this case by satisfying the standards publicly notified or average water level under the mining plan within the extremely limited scope, and it seems significantly difficult for the Intervenor to achieve the original purpose of mining development, which is rational development of mineral resources, due to the lack of economic value. On the other hand, the Korea Association of Soil Environment, which is composed of experts in the soil environment, has been likely to cause damage to the neighboring mine of this case to the mine of this case, and it appears that there is a considerable probability that some of the surrounding mining areas might actually be 25 meters away.

Therefore, the court below's determination that the authorization of this case does not constitute a case where the discretionary authority is deviates or abused without examining the above circumstances, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part concerning the permission for establishment of mining rights as of October 12, 200 and the permission for alteration of mining plans as of June 12, 2000 are reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)