(a) A ledger of administrative litigation seeking a cancellation of the registration of the extinction of mining rights by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and the nature of the act of registration in the mining ledger of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy under Articles 39 and 40 of the Mining Industry Act and Article 13 of

B. Nature of the registration of the mining ledger

A. Registration in the mining ledger is merely an ex officio act based on the premise that permission for the grant of mining rights is granted, and registration itself does not constitute an administrative disposition that grants mining rights.

B. Seeking the cancellation of the registration of the extinguishment of mining rights is a result of filing a claim for cancellation registration, and it is an administrative benefit to an administrative agency. Therefore, it cannot be subject to administrative litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Du105 Decided April 17, 1965

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Minister of Commerce and Energy

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (Attorney Ansan-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 65Gu26 delivered on August 31, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.

According to the records, the purport of the plaintiff's first claim is not to seek revocation of the permission of mining right (registration No. 1 omitted) and (registration No. 2 omitted) against the plaintiffs ex officio, but it is clear by the complaint and the purport of the plaintiff's pleading at the court below and the statement in the appellate brief itself that the defendant seeks revocation of the registration of extinguishment of the above mining right after the revocation of the permission of the defendant's ex officio. Thus, the plaintiff's first claim in the original judgment cannot be a subject of administrative litigation, and as long as the plaintiff's second claim in the original judgment is rejected on the ground that the plaintiff's second claim is unlawful, the second claim in the original judgment is legitimate, and as long as the defendant's second claim in the original judgment is rejected on the ground that there is no benefit in the protection of rights (the rejection of the plaintiff's second claim in the original judgment as to the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's second claim in the original judgment should be dismissed on the ground that there is no reason to oppose the plaintiff's appeal).

According to Articles 71 and 76 of the Mining Industry Act, a person who is dissatisfied with a certain registration of the registration of a mining right may raise an objection to the competent Minister in accordance with the above provisions, and even though the above provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis to an objection, all dispositions concerning the registration of management of registration may not be subject to administrative litigation, and it shall not be distinguished according to specific dispositions, and in this case, it shall not be subject to administrative litigation even to a claim that results in an administrative agency to seek administrative benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 64Nu105, Apr. 17, 1965). Thus, the argument that the original judgment is inconsistent with the above opinion is groundless.

The third point is examined for the same reason.

Mining rights are established by the permission of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy for the grant of mining rights to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy in regard to the application for mining, and upon the permission disposition, the Minister of Trade, and Energy ex officio under Article 39 of the Mining Industry Act, Article 13 of the Decree on the Registration of Mining Industry, and Article 40 of the Mining Industry Act provides that mining rights shall not take effect unless they are registered in the mining ledger. However, registration in the mining ledger is merely an ex officio act premised on the permission of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy for the grant of mining rights to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy.

Therefore, the argument to criticize the original judgment on the premise that the act of registration itself is the act of granting the mining right is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Kim-g-ba (Presiding Justice)