(a) Establishment of a mining right for other minerals buried in the same mineral deposit as the minerals for which the mining right has been established during the existence of the mining right;

(b) Validity of permission for the establishment of mining rights for minerals of no economic value necessary for mining;

A. Under the Mining Industry Act, the mining rights for the same mineral shall not be established overlapping for the same mineral, and even for different types of mineral, the different types of mineral buried in the same mineral deposit as the mineral for which the mining rights are established shall be regarded as the same mineral in the establishment of the mining rights, so as to such different types of mineral, the existing mining rights may not be established separately unless the existing mining rights are legally cancelled or the term of existence expires.

B. Even if the content of the mineral with the establishment of a mining right falls far more than the standard value of economic value and it is found as a result of the store quantity survey that there is no economic value to mine, such defect cannot be seen as objectively clear, and thus, it cannot be said that the establishment of a mining right is an invalid disposition.

Articles 26 and 29(1) of the Mining Industry Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu635 Delivered on December 26, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of the mining registration office for the defendant joining the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu72 delivered on July 24, 1985

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu635 Delivered on December 26, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

In the Mining Industry Act, the mining rights for the same mineral cannot be established overlapping for the same mineral, and even for different types of mineral, the different types of mineral buried in the same mineral deposit as the mineral on which the mining rights are established shall be considered to be the same mineral in the establishment of the mining rights. Therefore, as for different types of mineral, the existing mining rights cannot be established separately unless the existing mining rights are legally cancelled or the term of existence expires.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the mining area No. 88 of this case, from the above point of view, the court below maintained the defendant's disposition on the ground that, as long as the mining right of this case No. 88 of this case remains effective for 25 years, the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's intervenor, mine species, grix and grix in the above mining area shall be regarded as the same kind of mineral buried in the same mineral deposit and the modification of grix and grix in the same mineral deposit shall be regarded as the same kind of mineral buried in the same mineral deposit.

Even if the content of the arche on which the mining right of this case was established is less than the modification and it is found that there is no economic value to mine because it falls far less than the standard value of economic value such as the theory of lawsuit, the defect in the permission for establishment of mining rights of this case cannot be seen as objectively clear, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a disposition for invalidity of the permission for establishment of mining rights of this case. Therefore, it is difficult to find a argument of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the mining rights on the premise

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)