Whether the conclusion of a contract for the sale of mining rights under the Decree on the Disposal of National Mining Rights is subject to administrative litigation

The free contract for the sale of mining rights under the Decree on the Disposal of State-Owned Mining Rights is a judicial relationship subject to judicial regulation, unless otherwise provided by the group of parties, since even though the parties are the state, it is clear that the cause is not a control relationship due to power, and therefore it is not a subject of administrative litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Law No. 213)

Plaintiff

Minister of Finance and Economy

The principal office shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's legal representative, despite the fact that the non-party 1 was the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's.

The defendant's legal representative is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's legal representative's assertion that the plaintiff's claim should be made at the plaintiff's cost and the plaintiff's claim should be received at least two estimates pursuant to Article 111 of the Enforcement Decree of the Finance Act. The plaintiff's claim that the non-party 2 and the non-party 1's claim should be rejected in whole and after two or more estimates should be made pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Finance Act, and the plaintiff's sale of the above case should be made at the price of the non-party 1's bidding. The defendant's request for sale of the above state property should be dealt with in accordance with the above provision of Article 1 of the State Property Act, and if the plaintiff's request for sale of the above government property is made at the price of the non-party 2's purchase, maintenance, management and disposal of the above property, the defendant's sale of the above state property shall be decided by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy and Economy's sale of the above state property.

In light of the above, the purport of the claim refers to cases where the parties have no dispute between the parties and the Plaintiff’s existence of controversy over the illegality of the free contract for the sale of the mining right, and the legal relationship between the parties is public law or private law relations. The former refers not only to cases where a state with which the relationship between the State and the citizens can not be seen as one of the parties gives an irregular order to the citizens, but also to cases where a legal relationship between the citizens is formed without the other party’s intent, such as deprivation of this right, without the other party’s intent, or the other party’s unilateral order. Even if the State as the subject of economic property, it refers to a simple economic value such as a state-owned relationship that may arise between the private parties as the subject of the right of the sale of the mining right, and thus, it is not unlawful for the Defendant to determine the legal relationship with the private parties as the subject of a non-state-state-owned private contract, as long as it does not constitute an administrative law and a non-state-owned private contract.

Judges Hong Il-man (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-Un