Of the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff, the part concerning the claim for damages due to the defendant's gathering of stone shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The First Ground for Appeal

A. Article 48(1) of the former Mining Industry Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8355, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that “No mining right holder may mine minerals without permission of the competent authority or approval of the owner or interested party of the land in a place within 50 meters above the surface or underground of the graveyard building, where railroads, tracks, tracks, roads, water supply systems, ports, rivers, possession pipes, irrigation and drainage pipes, opening and drainage facilities, tombstones, temples, temples, and temples, or a place within 30 meters above the surface or underground of the graveyard building.”

In order to prevent the occurrence of an event that may interfere with the management and operation of public facilities, religious facilities, other buildings, graveyards, etc. in the course of mining operations, the above provision merely provides that permission from the competent authorities, or consent from the owners or interested parties shall be obtained in cases of mining in the vicinity thereof. Such restriction is the minimum restriction following mining rights for public welfare, which is inevitable and inevitable, and it cannot be said that a special property sacrifice is forced. Thus, the mining right holder cannot seek compensation on the ground that the mining right holder suffered loss due to the above restriction on mining.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da10876 Decided June 10, 2005). This legal principle also applies to mining rights subject to restrictions on mining under Article 48(1) of the former Mining Industry Act, regardless of whether or not mining rights are economically valuable or not, or the time when facilities, buildings, etc. are installed due to public works, etc. subject to restrictions on mining, and the same applies to cases where facilities, buildings, etc. are installed after the establishment of mining rights or commencement of mining.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da108197 Decided March 27, 2014). B.

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff, a mining right holder, was 50 meters above the surface of the road established by the Defendant’s instant construction work.