A. Whether a mining right holder with respect to minerals buried in the underground of the public waters constitutes “a person who has a right to the public waters” under each subparagraph of Article 6 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act without obtaining permission to occupy and use the public waters (negative)

B. Whether a disposition of license for reclamation of public waters is unlawful (affirmative) without the consent of the mining right holder under Paragraph (a) above (negative), and whether a disposition of license for reclamation of public waters is void as a matter of course without the consent of the right holder (negative)

C. Whether a project approval to expropriate land under the Mining Industry Act and the Land Expropriation Act is the discretionary act of an administrative agency (affirmative);

(a) Even if a person has mining rights for minerals buried in the underground of the public waters, the person can not be deemed to fall under the “person who has a right to the public waters” under the subparagraphs of Article 6 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act unless he has obtained permission to occupy and use such public waters

B. It cannot be said that there was any error in the disposition of the license since the above mining right holder's license was issued without the consent of the above mining right holder's "A" and even if the license was granted for reclamation of public waters without the consent of the holder of the right to the public waters, the disposition does not necessarily become invalid.

C. Approval of a project for the expropriation of land under Articles 87 and 89 of the Mining Industry Act, Article 14 of the Land Expropriation Act is not a simple confirmation act, but a formation act is not a formative act, and even if the project falls under a project capable of expropriation of land, an administrative agency shall make a specific determination by taking into account all the circumstances as to whether there is a public interest for expropriation of land. Thus, approval of a project belongs to the administrative

(a)Article 6(b) of the Public Waters Reclamation Act; Article 4(c) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 87, 88, and 89 of the Mining Industry Act; Articles 14 and 27 of the Land Expropriation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 66Nu83 delivered on December 20, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 71Da153 delivered on March 23, 1971, Supreme Court Decision 19Nu230 delivered on March 23, 197

[Judgment of the court below]

Do Governor of Chungcheongnam-Nam

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu8809 delivered on December 4, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Even if a person has a mining right to minerals buried on the underground of the public waters with respect to the part for which the confirmation of invalidity of the disposition for reclamation of the public waters is sought, so long as the person has not obtained permission to occupy and use the public waters, the person who has a right to the public waters cannot be deemed to fall under the “person who has a right to the public waters” under each subparagraph of Article 6 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 66Nu83, Dec. 20, 196). Thus, there is no error in the disposition of reclamation of the public waters without the consent of the above mining right holder. Meanwhile, even if the reclamation license for the public waters was granted without the consent of the person who has a right to the public waters, the disposition does not necessarily become null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da153

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct and there are no errors such as incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, violation of the rules of evidence, etc.

2. As to the part for which the revocation of the project approval refusal disposition is sought

In Articles 87 through 89 of the Mining Industry Act, project approval for land expropriation under Article 14 of the Land Expropriation Act is not a simple confirmation act, but a formation act is not a formation act and even if the project falls under a project capable of expropriation of land, it shall be determined in detail by considering all the circumstances as to whether the project is a public interest for expropriation of land. Thus, project approval shall belong to the discretion of an administrative agency.

Under such premise, the court below's decision that the disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiff's project approval cannot be deemed to exceed the limit of discretion or to be an abuse of its discretionary power, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit or in the violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.