1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following, thereby citing this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The Mining Industry Act places restrictions on the extraction of minerals in an area within 50 meters underground of the surface of the structure such as a railroad, etc. under Article 44(1) of the same Act, but separately recognizes that mining is detrimental to the public interest under Article 34 of the same Act, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall revoke the mining right or reduce the mining area and compensate the mining right holder for losses arising therefrom. In other words, if the restriction on extraction within the above scope is deemed that the public interest is not sufficiently protected, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall issue a disposition to revoke the mining right or reduce the mining area, and compensate the mining right holder for losses arising therefrom. If the mining of minerals through the blasting work in this case results in detrimental to the safety of the tunnel of this case, so the defendants are obliged to take measures and compensate for losses arising therefrom. The defendants' failure to compensate the plaintiffs for damages due to the tort, and the defendants are liable to compensate for damages arising therefrom.

In addition, this is a general limitation under the above Mining Industry Act, which is irrelevant to the existence or scale of the mining right of this case or to the timing of the construction of the tunnel of this case.

This restriction on mining is naturally limited and inevitable for public welfare.