(a) Whether to permit the establishment of new mining rights for different kinds of minerals buried in the same mineral deposit;

B. Whether the establishment of a mining right for minerals with no economic value that can be mined is automatically null and void (negative)

A. According to the provisions of Articles 5, 24, 26, and 28 of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 3755 of Dec. 15, 1984), the mining right for the same mineral shall not be established in duplicate in an area where the mining right has already been established. In this case, the non-identical mineral buried in the same mineral deposit shall not be permitted except for the cases where the establishment of the mining right is considered as the same mineral in the establishment of the mining right.

B. A mining right once established shall continue to exist as long as it is revoked under the provisions of Articles 38 through 40 of the Mining Industry Act or there is no reason to automatically invalidate it, and it shall not be deemed to be null and void as it has been erroneously established even though there is no economic value to mine minerals in the establishment area.

A. Articles 5, 24, 26, and 28(b) of the former Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 3755, Dec. 15, 1984); Articles 38, 39, and 40 of the Mining Industry Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu635 Delivered on December 26, 1984

Plaintiff

The head of the Mining Registration Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu739 delivered on July 25, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the Mining Industry Act (amended by Act No. 3755 of Dec. 15, 1984; hereinafter the same applies), a mining right is a right to mine and acquire minerals registered in a certain mining area and other minerals buried in the same mineral deposit (Article 5). Two or more mining rights shall not be established except for the same mineral deposit in the same area (Article 24). If the application area overlaps with a mining area of the same mineral at the time of application, the establishment of a mining right for the overlapping area shall not be permitted. In this case, different kinds of minerals buried in the same mineral deposit shall be regarded as the same mineral deposit (Articles 26 and 28). In this case, the establishment of a mining right for the same mineral deposit shall not be overlapped, and in this case, non-identical minerals buried in the same mineral deposit shall be considered as the same mineral deposit as the establishment of a mining right, and the establishment of a mining right for the same mineral deposit in the same mineral deposit shall be considered as an exception to the establishment of a mining right for the same mineral deposit.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is insufficient, its purport overlaps with that of the non-party where the plaintiff filed an application for the establishment of an elderly earth mining right by filing an earlier application of the non-party, and the elderly land of the plaintiff principal is the same as that of the non-party, and thus, the old land of the plaintiff principal constitutes a different kind of mineral buried in the same mineral deposit as that of the payment and payment for which the establishment of a mining right has already been already made, and the old land of the plaintiff principal shall be deemed to have rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition taken by the defendant by filing an application for the establishment of an elderly earth mining right with the non-party who is a mining right holder of the old land and the registration for additional confirmation of the old land and payment without permission, and the fact-finding of the court below that the elderly land of the plaintiff principal is in the same mineral deposit as that of the payment and payment for which the mining right had already been established with the non-party. Therefore, the court below's finding of facts cannot be deemed to have been erroneous as the theory of litigation

2. In addition, once a mining right established is revoked under the provisions of Articles 38 and 40 of the Mining Industry Act or becomes void automatically, it shall continue to exist as long as there is no ground for revocation of the right to mine, and even if there is no economic value to mine minerals within the establishment area, it shall not be deemed null and void as it was mistakenly established (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu635 delivered on December 26, 1984). Thus, even if there is no economic value to mine tin and tin buried in the mining right area established in the non-party's future, it shall not be permitted to apply for an old soil mining right of the plaintiff overlapping within the same area on the sole basis of such circumstance.

Therefore, there is no ground to charge the judgment of the court below on the ground that the non-party's registration of establishment of mining rights has no economic value to mine tin and tin.

3. Ultimately, 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 judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)