Mining right compensation for a public project and a suit to cancel refusal of a request for an expropriation ruling

A dispute arose when a mining right holder sought compensation for restrictions on mineral extraction in connection with a waterway construction project under a large integrated agricultural development project carried out by the Korea Rural Community Corporation.

The mining right holder filed a suit to cancel the Corporation's refusal to request an expropriation ruling, and the matter then proceeded to ruling proceedings before the regional Land Tribunal.

Attorney Jaehoon Lee represented the Korea Rural Community Corporation in the administrative lawsuit and the subsequent proceedings on the request for an expropriation ruling.

The key issues were whether a mining right created after the public project's implementation plan was publicly announced was eligible for compensation, and whether the restriction on mineral extraction caused by the installation of public facilities was one the mining right holder had to accept.

Other issues were whether the project operator could refuse to request an expropriation ruling on the ground that the mining right was not eligible for compensation, and how to distinguish the duty to request a ruling from the substantive duty to pay compensation.

Attorney Lee analyzed the implementation plan for the integrated agricultural development project and its amendments, when the mining right was created and its transfer registered, the relevant laws and Supreme Court of Korea precedents, and official interpretations by the relevant ministries.

On that basis, he reviewed whether a mining right created after the public announcement of the implementation plan was eligible for compensation and the legal nature of the extraction restriction caused by the public facilities, and argued against the mining right holder's compensation claim.

After the judgment cancelling the refusal to request a ruling, he also submitted a request for a ruling to the regional Land Tribunal and developed legal arguments on whether the mining right was eligible for compensation, on the premise that the duty to request a ruling and the actual duty to pay compensation are separate questions.