catalogue

1. Dispute over the ownership of exploration rights between Sun Suxian and the Xuanzheng Army

2. Dispute over Mining Rights between Fu Qinqi and the People's Government of Shexing Township, Xianyou County

3. Chen Fuquan and Queshan County Tuanshan Mining Development Co., Ltd. Mining Rights Transfer Contract Dispute Case

4. Dispute over the Mining Rights Contract between Daping Marble Mine and Li Jing in Baoxing County, Sichuan Province

5. Dispute over Labor Contract between Zizhong County Hongji Mining Company, He Shenghua, and Lv Zhihong

6. Dispute over Mining Rights Cooperation Contract between Lang Yichun and Peng Guanghui, as well as Nanhua County Xinghui Mining Co., Ltd

7. Dispute over the equity transfer contract between Xue Mengyi and four others and Tibet Guoneng Mining Development Co., Ltd. and Tibet Longhui Mining Co., Ltd

8. Huang Guojun's Partnership Dispute with Dalinwan Mining Plant and Su Zhichang in Zunyi City

9. Dispute over Special Area Cooperation Exploration Contract between Xinjiang Lingang Resource Investment Co., Ltd. and Sichuan Jinhe Mining Co., Ltd

10. Tort dispute case between the Tuyan Gangtou An Yela Stone Mine in Yunhe County and the State Grid Zhejiang Electric Power Company's deposit overburden

1、 Dispute over the ownership of exploration rights between Sun Suxian and the Xuanzheng Army

（1） Basic facts of the case

Sun Suxian and three others invested in contracting the forest land in Xiangyangsuo Village, Qinglongshan Town, Naiman Banner in 2004, with a contract period of 15 years, for the development of iron ore. Sun Suxian and three others entrusted Xuanzheng Army to handle the exploration permit, and delivered relevant materials such as the entrusted exploration contract, forest land contract, deposit certificate, exploration right application registration form, and the certificate processing fund of 1.14 million yuan to Xuanzheng Army. On December 28, 2005, with the approval of the Department of Land and Resources of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, the Land and Resources Bureau of Tongliao City implemented a listing transfer of the iron ore exploration rights in the Xiangyangsuo area of Qinglongshan, Naiman Banner, and announced it. Xuan Zhengjun altered Sun Suxian's name on the certificate application materials to his own name and secretly engraved the official seal of the "Fourth Geological Brigade of Liaoning Province" to forge the exploration contract. Using the certificate application funds handed over to him by Sun Suxian and three others, he bid in the name of Naiman Banner North Construction Company (the legal representative of the company is Xuan Zhengjun) and obtained the exploration permit under the name of Xuan Zhengjun himself; On February 13, 2006, the Department of Land and Resources of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region issued the "Mineral Resources Exploration License" to the Xuanzheng Army. Sun Suxian and three others filed a lawsuit requesting confirmation that the Mineral Resources Exploration License involved in the case belongs to Sun Suxian and the three others.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Tongliao City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, in its first instance, held that the Xuanzheng Army had used the funds and necessary materials provided by Sun Suxian and other three individuals to falsify their names and produce false declaration materials, and obtained exploration permits through fraudulent means, infringing on the exploration application rights of Sun Suxian and other three individuals. Therefore, it ruled that the exploration rights established on the "Mineral Resources Exploration Permit" in the case were owned by Sun Suxian and other three individuals. The Higher People's Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region held in the second instance that Sun Suxian and three others advocated for the Xuanzheng Army to obtain the exploration permit involved in the case by forging materials and other means. They should report the situation to the competent department of land and resources, and the competent department should take measures after investigating the facts. They can also file an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court in accordance with the law, requesting the revocation of the exploration permit obtained by the Xuanzheng Army. The lawsuit filed by Sun Suxian and other three individuals does not fall within the scope of civil litigation. The second instance court ruled to revoke the first instance judgment and dismissed the lawsuits of Sun Suxian and the three others. The Supreme People's Court, after a retrial review, believes that the acquisition of exploration rights requires permission from the competent department of land and resources. This administrative license has the nature of empowerment and belongs to the management function of administrative organs. In the case where the exploration right can only be established, changed, or revoked through administrative licensing, Sun Suxian and three others requested confirmation that the "Mineral Resources Exploration License" belongs to them, which does not meet the scope of civil litigation as stipulated by law. The second instance court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit without any impropriety.

（3） Typical significance

Mining rights have both civil property rights and administrative licensing characteristics. The exercise and relief of mining rights involve the division of responsibilities between administrative and judicial powers. The acquisition of exploration rights requires permission from the competent department of land and resources, and the registration and modification of the Mineral Resources Exploration License belong to the administrative management functions of the competent department of land and resources. The client entrusts others to handle the exploration license, but the trustee fails to faithfully fulfill the entrusted obligation and uses fraudulent means to handle the exploration license in their own name. The client directly files a civil lawsuit, requesting confirmation that the exploration license belongs to them, which is an inappropriate choice for rights relief channels. The people's court's ruling to dismiss the lawsuit shows respect for the administrative management function of administrative organs and accurately grasps the legal boundary of judicial intervention. In this case, the client may apply to the competent department of land and resources as an interested party for revocation and request that the ownership of the exploration rights be dealt with in accordance with the law; Administrative litigation can also be filed in accordance with the law, requesting the people's court to review the specific administrative actions of the competent department of land and resources; It is also possible to claim breach of contract liability or civil damages from the trustee in accordance with the contract, in order to achieve legal remedies after rights are infringed upon.

Li Xiandong is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Civil, Commercial, and Economic Law of China University of Political Science and Law.

Comments

The mining right is a civil right explicitly stipulated in China's property law, but its establishment cannot be separated from the permission of the competent department of land and resources. From the analysis of administrative legal relations, although the administrative licensing act granting exploration rights in the case has flaws, based on the credibility of mining rights registration and the principle of specific administrative actions, the empowering act of the administrative agency has already been made. Before the administrative licensing act is reviewed and corrected by the administrative agency or corrected by administrative litigation judicial review, the people's court should not directly consider the exploration license invalid in civil litigation. In other words, the subject with the authority to make administrative licenses for mineral resource exploration and development is the competent department of land and resources, and the people's court cannot directly interfere with the exercise of administrative functions by the competent department of land and resources through the judicial power of civil trial. From the perspective of civil legal relations, if the principal entrusts others to handle the application for mining rights, and the trustee fails to faithfully fulfill the trustee's obligations, there is fraudulent behavior, the principal may hold the trustee responsible for breach of contract in accordance with the provisions of the commission contract.

This case involves a dual legal relationship between administrative license and civil commission application, and the parties can choose different ways of remedies for their rights. However, it is worth noting that civil litigation can only solve civil legal disputes based on the establishment of mining rights, and cannot solve the legal effectiveness of administrative actions in the process of mining rights establishment. The people's court cannot directly change the administrative license empowerment behavior through civil judgments unless the exploration license obtained has been revoked in accordance with the law or administrative trial. Therefore, the parties involved in this case directly filed a civil lawsuit, requesting confirmation of the ownership of the mineral resource exploration license involved in the case, and requesting a change in the subject of mining rights, which is due to improper selection of rights relief channels. The people's court rejects the lawsuit and allows the parties to choose the most appropriate way to protect their legitimate rights and interests. This not only respects the supervisory and management functions of administrative agencies, but also accurately grasps the legal boundaries of judicial intervention, playing a good exemplary role in how to handle the issue of property ownership in the establishment of mining rights in judicial practice.

2、 The Mining Rights Dispute between Fu Qinqi and the People's Government of Shexing Township, Xianyou County

（1） Basic facts of the case

On January 16, 2003, the government of Shexing Township signed a contract with Fu Qinqi to develop the Talingding Illite Mine in Shexing Township, Xianyou County. After the contract was signed, Fu Qinqi invested in roads and other facilities according to the agreement and carried out exploration activities. On January 24, 2005, the Xianyou County Government approved the listing and transfer of mining rights involved in the case. In July 2007, the Xianyou County government listed the mines involved in the case as prohibited mining. Fu Qinqi failed to obtain a mining license for the mine involved in the case in accordance with the law. Fu Qinqi filed a lawsuit requesting the government of Shexing Township to compensate for the losses and pay interest on the investment funds during the occupation period.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Putian City, Fujian Province reviewed the actual investment amount of 1.533561 million yuan by Ming Fu Qinqi and ordered the government of Shexing Township to bear 50% of the compensation liability. The Fujian Provincial Higher People's Court held in the second instance that the government of Shexing Township, knowing that it had no right to transfer mineral resources within its jurisdiction, entrusted the mining involved in the case to Fu Qinqi for development by signing a contract without the approval of the competent authority. The contract signed should be invalid. The mine involved in the case has been classified as a prohibited mining area and does not have the possibility of handling legal approval procedures. The legal consequences arising from this should be classified according to the nature of the assets invested by Fu Qinqi. The deposit belongs to the deposit collected by the Shexing Township Government due to the contract and should be directly returned; The road under construction is located within the jurisdiction of the Shexing Township Government and belongs to its beneficial part, which should be compensated at a discount based on actual expenses; The remaining investments are losses incurred during the performance of the contract and should be subject to civil compensation liability in proportion to the fault. Thus, it was ordered that the government of Shexing Township refund Fu Qinqi a total of 670712 yuan in deposit and road construction expenses, and bear 80% of the compensation liability for Fu Qinqi's investment loss of 862849 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

Mineral resources belong to the state, and the state implements a strict license management system for the exploration and mining of mineral resources. The transfer of mining rights should be carried out by the competent departments of land and resources at or above the county level in accordance with legal authority, and township governments are not eligible subjects for the transfer of mining rights. Without a mining exploration or mining license, township governments sign contracts to entrust state-owned mineral resources to others for exploration and mining, which not only seriously infringes on the state's ownership of mineral resources, causes the loss of mining rights and taxes, but also easily leads to indiscriminate mining of mineral resources, and even leads to environmental pollution and ecological damage. A negative legal evaluation should be given to such contracts. On the premise of determining the invalidity of the contract, the people's court should distinguish between different liability methods such as returning property and compensating for losses. While maintaining national ownership of mineral resources, it should comprehensively consider fault factors, protect the legitimate interests of the parties involved and the transaction order of the mining rights transfer market.

Li Xiandong is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Civil, Commercial, and Economic Law of China University of Political Science and Law.

Comments

Although mining rights are civil rights, they still have characteristics such as the development and management order of mineral resources and economic regulation of ecological environment protection. According to the provisions of the Mineral Resources Law, the subject of mining rights transfer should be the competent department of land and resources at or above the county level. The unauthorized transfer of mining rights by the township government violates the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and cannot produce the expected legal effects of the parties involved. Township governments, as administrative entities, should make administrative actions within their jurisdiction. A specific administrative act should have binding force, and once established, regardless of whether it is legal or not, it has a legal effect that is presumed to be legal and requires respect from all organs, organizations, or individuals. The reasonable trust of the relative party in administrative actions should be protected.

Regarding the issue of bearing the legal consequences after the contract involved in the case was given a negative legal evaluation, the second instance court changed the judgment of the first instance court regarding the equal fault of both parties, believing that the government should bear the main fault responsibility, correctly revealing the causal relationship between the illegal administrative behavior of the government and the invalidity of the contract in this case, and fully protecting the interests of the other party to the contract who suffered damage due to reliance on the government's behavior. It not only effectively protects national and public interests, but also highlights the basic concept of government "administration in accordance with the law, exceeding authority and invalidity" in modern mining administrative management. It undoubtedly has regulatory significance for the large number of non-standard mining rights transfer and transfer chaos in practice.

3、 Chen Fuquan and Queshan County Tuanshan Mining Development Co., Ltd. Mining Rights Transfer Contract Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On January 15, 2014, Chen Fuquan signed a mining rights transfer agreement with Tuanshan Company, agreeing that Tuanshan Company would transfer its mining rights to Chen Fuquan at a price of 3.6 million yuan, and actively cooperate with Chen Fuquan to handle the mining license. After the contract was signed, Chen Fuquan paid in full according to the agreement. On February 15, 2014, Tuanshan Company entrusted Chen Fuquan to handle the extension procedures for the mining license with the Henan Provincial Department of Land and Resources, and completed them on July 21, 2014. Subsequently, Tuanshan Company refused to cooperate with Chen Fuquan in handling the approval and registration procedures for the transfer of mining rights. Chen Fuquan filed a lawsuit requesting confirmation of the validity of the mining rights transfer agreement. Tuanshan Company will cooperate with Chen Fuquan to handle the mining rights transfer procedures.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Queshan County, Henan Province held in the first instance that the mining rights transfer agreement was legal and valid, and Chen Fuquan handled the relevant procedures for the mining rights transfer. The Intermediate People's Court of Zhumadian City, Henan Province held in the second instance that Chen Fuquan and Tuanshan Company expressed the same intention regarding the transfer of mining rights in the case, and both signed the transfer agreement, which has been established. According to the provisions of the State Council's "Management Measures for the Transfer of Exploration and Mining Rights", the transfer of mining rights should be submitted to the competent department of land and resources for approval, and the transfer contract shall take effect from the date of approval. After the establishment of the mining rights transfer agreement, the approval obligations agreed upon by both parties in the agreement have legal effect. Tuanshan Company's failure to handle the approval procedures as agreed violates the principle of good faith. According to Article 8 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (II), the people's court may, based on the specific circumstances of the case and the request of the other party, judge the other party to handle the relevant procedures themselves. The second instance court ruled that the mining rights transfer agreement was established, and Chen Fuquan handled the relevant procedures for mining rights transfer.

（3） Typical significance

The approval of the transfer of mining rights is an important system for the country to regulate the orderly circulation of mining rights and achieve scientific protection and rational development of mineral resources. The transfer contract of mining rights shall not have the effect of any change in the property rights of mining rights without the approval of the competent department of land and resources and the registration procedures for the change of mining rights. However, it shall be confirmed that the approval obligation clauses in the transfer contract shall have legal effect from the establishment of the contract, and the approval obligor shall comply with the contract. If the transfer contract does not have legal invalidity and the approval obligation meets the conditions for performance, the counterparty has the right to request the approval obligor to fulfill the approval obligation; The people's court may, based on the facts of the case and the request of the opposing party, also make a judgment that the opposing party shall handle the approval procedures on its own. Allowing the counterpart to handle the approval procedures on their own is not only in line with the principles of honesty and credit and encouraging transactions, but also beneficial for balancing the interests of both parties.

【Cui Jianyuan】, a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Law at Tsinghua University.

【Comments】

The vast majority of contracts come into effect from the time they are established, but some contracts, due to the attachment of effective conditions or starting periods, should take effect when the conditions are fulfilled or the starting period expires. There are also contracts that come into effect upon completion of approval, registration, and other procedures by the administrative authorities, as stipulated by laws and administrative regulations. The dispute over the "Agreement on Transfer of Mines" belongs to the contract that is subject to the review and approval of the administrative department as the effective requirement as stipulated in Article 44 (2) of the Contract Law. This type of contract shall have legal effect upon review and approval by the competent department of land and resources, and shall be deemed invalid when the competent department of land and resources does not approve it. It shall remain in a state of non effectiveness until the competent department of land and resources has expressed its opinion.

In practice, there is a dispute regarding the determination of the validity of mining rights transfer contracts, which conflicts with Article 15 of the Property Law, Article 44 (2) of the Contract Law, and Article 10 (3) of the Management Measures for the Transfer of Exploration and Mining Rights. The so-called registration of property rights stipulated in Article 15 of the Property Law refers to the registration of establishment rights. In cases where the registration of creation rights is the effective requirement for property rights changes, the registration of creation rights determines whether the property rights have changed, but does not affect the effectiveness of actions such as transfer contracts that trigger property rights changes. However, not all contracts are no longer subject to the provisions of Article 44 (2) of the Contract Law. The registration as a requirement for the effective change of property rights and the review and approval by the administrative department as a requirement for the effective contract are two different concepts. The provisions of Article 15 of the Property Law are related to registration, but they are far from being reviewed and approved by the administrative authorities. Compared to the special effective requirements for contracts stipulated in Article 44 (2) of the Contract Law, Article 15 of the Property Law only provides a general provision for causal behavior and does not specify the effective requirements for causal behavior from a positive perspective. It only declares from a negative perspective that the registration required for property rights changes is no longer the effective requirement for causal behavior. Taking the approval of the competent department of land and resources as the effective requirement is necessary to prevent the transfer of mining rights to unqualified transferees, avoid natural resource waste, and reduce or even reduce mining accidents. Even in the context of administrative management system reform and streamlining administration and delegating power, it should still be respected. It should only be noted that the positioning and qualitative analysis of the approval obligation in the mining rights transfer contract should adopt the interpretation path of legal obligation and pre contract obligation, which is an independent obligation different from the mining rights transfer obligation and corresponding payment obligation, and its effectiveness is not affected by the unapproved transfer contract.

4、 Dispute over the Mining Rights Contract between Daping Marble Mine and Li Jing in Baoxing County, Sichuan Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

Baoxing Daping Mine has a legal and valid mining license and relevant certificates. On September 22, 2009, Baoxing Daping Mine signed an "Agreement" with Li Jing, stipulating that Baoxing Daping Mine would provide legal mining procedures, mining sites, power facilities, roads, explosive warehouses, and other infrastructure; The newly added forest land and road cooperation in the mining area will be owned by Baoxing Daping Mine upon expiration; Li Jing pays a fixed amount of fees to Baoxing Daping Mine, enjoys autonomy in production and operation, organizes production and marketing personnel on his own, bears salary expenses, and pays taxes according to regulations; If Baoxing Daping Mine breaches the contract, it shall compensate Li Jing for all the expenses invested. Li Jing provided preliminary investment and conducted mining as agreed. Baoxing Daping Mine filed a lawsuit requesting confirmation of the invalidity of the Agreement. Li Jing stopped production and withdrew, returning the mine and related equipment and facilities.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Ya'an City, Sichuan Province held in the first instance that the "Agreement" is a contract for transferring mining rights through contracting and should be deemed invalid. The second instance of the Sichuan Provincial High People's Court held that the transfer of mining rights is the transfer of all the rights and interests of the mining rights, and the subject of the mining rights needs to be changed. The "Agreement" stipulates that Baoxing Daping Mine has a valid mining license and relevant legal certificates, and is responsible for providing all legal mining procedures and infrastructure such as mining sites and power facilities, roads, explosive warehouses, etc., in accordance with legal regulations and permits. The subject of mining rights will not change. In the actual performance process, external relations are also conducted in the name of Baoxing Daping Mine. Li Jing pays a fixed amount of fees to Baoxing Daping Mine, organizes production and marketing personnel on his own, bears salary expenses, and pays taxes according to regulations; Having the autonomy of production and operation, which is in line with the characteristics of the contract, should be recognized as a mining rights contract. Although the agreement stipulates that Li Jing's operating period is generally consistent with the existing mining license period of Baoxing Daping Mine, according to relevant laws and regulations, Baoxing Daping Mine can apply for renewal after the expiration. The "Agreement" is only an internal agreement on the rights and obligations between the parties to the contract, and is not intended for the purpose of transferring mining rights. It does not violate mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations and should be valid. The second instance court revoked the first instance judgment and rejected the lawsuit request of Baoxing Daping Mine.

（3） Typical significance

The laws and administrative regulations related to mineral resources in China prohibit the transfer of mining rights through contracting. In practice, it is necessary to distinguish between the transfer of mining rights through contracting and the transfer of mining rights through contracting. If the parties sign a mining rights contracting contract, which stipulates that the employer waives the management of the mine and no longer fulfills all legal obligations as the mining rights owner except for collecting fixed fees or profits, and no longer assumes any legal responsibility, it shall be deemed as a transfer of the mining rights in the form of contracting. If the parties involved sign a mining rights contract, agree to others to engage in mining activities together with them, or entrust the business management rights contained in the mining rights to others, but the rights subject of the mining rights remains unchanged, and the employer, as the mining rights owner, does not withdraw from mining management and continues to fulfill the legal obligations and assume corresponding legal responsibilities of the mining rights owner, provided that it does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, Its effectiveness should be confirmed in accordance with the law.

【Yao Hui】 is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Law at Renmin University of China.

【Comments】

The focus of this case is how to determine the nature and effectiveness of the "Agreement" signed by both parties involved, specifically the dispute between the mining rights transfer contract and the mining rights contract. The academic community generally believes that mining rights are private rights with a public nature. Due to their frequent involvement in national strategic interests and national economy and people's livelihood, strict conditions and restrictions are imposed on the transfer of rights. In addition to having a true expression of intention from both the transferor and transferee, the transfer of mining rights also requires the consent of relevant administrative authorities and the fulfillment of the procedures prescribed by laws and regulations. More importantly, once the mining rights are transferred, The subject of the mining right must be changed, and the rights and obligations of the original mining right holder will also be transferred accordingly; The contracting of mining rights is different from it. Its essence is that the mining rights holder freely exercises their mining rights, and the mining rights holder has the right to agree to others to jointly carry out mining activities with them or entrust the management rights contained in their mining rights to the contractor. This approach does not imply or equate to the transfer of mining rights in its nature. The highlight of this case is that the court of second instance correctly and appropriately distinguished between contracting mining rights and transferring mining rights in the form of contracting. The key to distinguishing between the two lies in whether the subject of mining rights has changed. If the mining rights holder waives the right to enjoy mining rights and fails to fulfill management obligations, and completely hands over the mining rights to the contractor, it should be recognized as transferring mining rights in the form of contracting, and its effectiveness should be evaluated in a negative manner; If the mining rights holder only signs a contract and does not withdraw from mining management, and continues to fulfill obligations and assume responsibilities, as long as it does not violate the mandatory provisions of validity, the validity of the contract should be recognized.

The determination of the nature and effectiveness evaluation of contracts has always been a difficult problem in judicial practice. A full understanding of civil law theory, accurate application of existing laws and regulations, and a perfect connection between the two are the necessary paths to solve the above problems.

5、 Dispute over Labor Contract between Zizhong County Hongji Mining Company, He Shenghua, and Lv Zhihong

（1） Basic facts of the case

Hongji Company is a limited liability company invested solely by He Shenghua. On April 30, 2009, Lv Zhihong signed a "Mining Labor Contract" with Hongji Company, which stipulated the mining method, unit price, rights and obligations of both parties, and breach of contract responsibilities. During the performance of the contract, Hongji Company made a written commitment to Lv Zhihong to settle and pay the relevant funds regularly according to the contract agreement. If Lv Zhihong is forced to stop work due to financial reasons due to non payment, Hongji Company shall be responsible for any losses caused. On February 25, 2010, due to the mining behavior of Lv Zhihong causing losses to villagers in the mining area, Hongji Company advanced 48418 yuan. Hongji Company filed a lawsuit requesting a decree to confirm the invalidity of the "Mining Labor Contract", and Lv Zhihong compensated for the loss of 668418 yuan. Lv Zhihong also filed a lawsuit, requesting that Hongji Company and He Shenghua jointly compensate for the loss of 4635558.67 yuan. The two cases mentioned above will be tried together and judged separately.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Zizhong County, Sichuan Province held in the first instance that the "Mining Labor Contract" constitutes a disguised transfer of mining rights and should be deemed invalid. It ordered Lv Zhihong to pay Hongji Company 48418 yuan, and Hongji Company and He Shenghua jointly paid Lv Zhihong labor fees and compensation losses of 1682770.98 yuan. The Intermediate People's Court of Neijiang City, Sichuan Province held in the second instance that Hongji Company and Lv Zhihong signed a "Mining Labor Contract" to contract the mining labor to Lv Zhihong, which is only the contracting of mining labor and does not constitute unauthorized transfer of mining rights in the form of contracting. The contract should be legal and valid, and both parties should fulfill their obligations in accordance with the contract. Although the rights and obligations of both parties were terminated on July 29, 2010, it does not affect the liquidation according to the contract or the demand for compensation for losses based on performance. The second instance court ruled that Lv Zhihong paid Hongji Company 93418 yuan, and Hongji Company and He Shenghua jointly paid Lv Zhihong labor fees and compensation losses of 309235.66 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

Labor contract is widely used in the production and operation of mining enterprises. Proper identification of the nature and effectiveness of contract contracts is beneficial for stabilizing transaction order and maintaining transaction safety. If the mining right owner contracts the mining task to the contractor for completion, pays a certain amount of labor remuneration to the contractor, and enjoys the labor achievements of the contractor, its nature should be recognized as a labor contract. The labor contract for mineral resource exploration and mining does not involve any change in the main body of the mining rights owner, does not belong to the transfer of mining rights in the form of contracting, and is not subject to legal regulations that require approval from the competent department of land and resources before the contract takes effect. Without violating the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, the contract should be confirmed as legal and valid.

【Yao Hui】 is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Law at Renmin University of China.

【Comments】

This case involves the understanding and application of mandatory provisions such as Article 52 of the Contract Law, Article 4 of the Interpretation of the Contract Law (1), Article 14 of the Interpretation of the Contract Law (2), Article 42 of the Mineral Resources Law, and Article 15 of the Management Measures for the Transfer of Exploration and Mining Rights, which prohibit the unauthorized transfer of mining rights through contracting. Article 52 of the Contract Law belongs to the introductory clause, with the aim of introducing the mandatory provisions in the Mineral Resources Law and the Management Measures for the Transfer of Exploration and Mining Rights into the evaluation of contract effectiveness, thereby achieving the specific control effect of the state on mining rights transfer contracts. However, the prerequisite for applying the above legal provisions is that this contract is a disguised transfer of mining rights under the name of labor contracting. The highlight of this case is that the court did not indiscriminately invoke this clause to determine that the contract involved in the case was invalid. Otherwise, it would undoubtedly damage the validity of the real labor contract, endanger transaction safety, and encourage the speculation of dishonest parties. Of course, the public interest protected by mandatory regulations cannot be disregarded and the validity of such contracts cannot be uniformly supported. Otherwise, it may lead to the adverse situation of mining rights flowing into the hands of business entities lacking operational qualifications. Therefore, identifying the truth, balancing different values, and determining the validity of contracts is the correct judgment approach.

On the basis of ascertaining the facts, this case determines that the contract in question belongs to a labor contract from various aspects such as the content of the contract, the ownership of the possession and disposal rights of mineral products, the operation and management of mining enterprises, the nominal owner of mining, the autonomy of the contractor, the investment of mining infrastructure, and the supply of daily consumables, and the parties' intentions are true. Therefore, it is determined that the contract is legal and valid. This approach of determining the nature of contracts based on multiple facts not only caters to the practical needs of labor contracting in mining operations, but also reflects the respect and protection of judges towards the true intentions of the parties involved. Within the boundaries of laws, regulations, and relevant policies, it adopts a tolerant attitude towards the effectiveness of contracts, which greatly highlights the principle of encouraging transactions in contract law.

6、 Dispute over the Mining Rights Cooperation Contract between Lang Yichun and Peng Guanghui, as well as Nanhua County Xinghui Mining Co., Ltd

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 2009, Xinghui Company obtained the mining license for Longtan Manganese Mine in Changliang Zigan, Tujie, Nanhua County. On May 23, 2010, Peng Guanghui, the legal representative of Xinghui Company, signed a cooperation agreement with Lang Yichun, stipulating that the joint development of the project involves manganese ore. Lang Yichun established a specialized agency to implement the daily development of the project. After the contract was signed, Lang Yichun paid Peng Guanghui a total of 3.23 million yuan and carried out mining activities. In 2011, the competent department of land and resources issued a "Stop Mining Notice" to Xinghui Company due to the drift phenomenon of the manganese ore involved in the case. Although Xinghui Company submitted materials to change the scope of the mining area, the change procedures were unsuccessful due to the loss of its mining rights permit. Lang Yichun was unable to continue his mining activities. Peng Guanghui recognized the 3.23 million yuan paid by Lang Yichun for mine road construction, excavation, construction of construction sheds, and power installation projects. Lang Yichun filed a lawsuit requesting confirmation that the cooperation agreement has not come into effect. Peng Guanghui will refund the cooperation fee and interest during the occupation period, and Peng Guanghui and Xinghui Company will be jointly and severally liable.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan Province held in the first instance that Peng Guanghui has no right to sign contracts with others in his personal name regarding the mining rights of Xinghui Company. The cooperation agreement stipulates that Lang Yichun will contribute and establish a specialized agency to carry out mining activities, which constitutes a disguised transfer of the mining rights. The agreement should be invalid, and Peng Guanghui and Xinghui Company should jointly return Lang Yichun 3.23 million yuan. The Yunnan Provincial High People's Court held in the second instance that the parties to the cooperation agreement should be Xinghui Company and Lang Yichun; According to the agreed content and actual performance of the contract, Xinghui Company still manages the financial supervision and project implementation of the mining operation. The qualification of Xinghui Company's mining rights subject has not been changed due to the signing of a cooperation agreement by both parties, which does not constitute a disguised transfer of mining rights. However, Xinghui Company's fundamental breach of contract resulted in the inability to achieve the purpose of Langyichun's contract. Therefore, Xinghui Company terminated the cooperation agreement and returned Langyichun 3.23 million yuan. The Supreme People's Court, after a retrial review, found that in order to avoid litigation burden on the parties, the second instance court, on the premise of determining that the cooperation agreement is legal and valid, there is no possibility of further performance, and that the facilities invested and constructed by Langyichun in the mine belong to Xinghui Company, combined with Langyichun's lawsuit request, ordered the termination of the cooperation agreement, and Xinghui Company returned Langyichun's 3.23 million yuan cooperation fee, without any impropriety.

（3） Typical significance

In the performance of the mining rights cooperation contract, if the mining rights holder has not abandoned the mining operation and management, continues to fulfill their legal obligations and assume corresponding legal responsibilities, and the mining rights subject has not changed, it does not constitute a disguised transfer of the mining rights, and the cooperation contract is not subject to legal restrictions that come into effect from the date of approval by the competent department of land and resources. If the parties request confirmation of the invalidity or non effectiveness of the cooperation contract on the grounds of not completing the approval procedures, the people's court shall not support it. In civil disputes over mining rights, disputes over the validity of contracts are relatively common, especially in cases where the parties' claims are inconsistent with the people's court's determination. The people's court should accurately define the nature of the contract and evaluate the validity of the contract based on the principles of litigation economy and equity of interests, combined with specific case facts and litigation claims.

【Wang Yi】 is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Law at Renmin University of China.

【Comments】

The correct determination of the validity of a contract is the key to properly handling contract disputes. In this case, the effectiveness of the Contract Agreement signed between the parties also affects the final judgment. From the provisions of the Contract Agreement, there is no provision for one party to transfer the mining rights to the other party, but rather an agreement that all parties will participate in the operation and management of the mine in different ways during the mining process. Therefore, this case does not have the space to apply the provisions of Article 6, Paragraph 1 (2) of the Mineral Resources Law of the People's Republic of China.

In fact, even mining enterprises that have obtained mining rights need to change the subject of mining rights due to enterprise merger, division, joint venture or cooperative operation with others, or due to the sale of enterprise assets or other changes in the property rights of enterprise assets, before going through the approval procedures in accordance with Article 6, Paragraph 1 (2) of the Mineral Resources Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 52 (5) of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China cannot be cited to determine the invalidity of the mining rights transfer contract concluded between the parties. The handling of approval procedures is a statutory special effective condition for mining rights transfer contracts. If this condition is not met, according to the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1 of the Interpretation of Contract Law (1), the clauses in the mining rights transfer contract that require approval to take effect are in an ineffective state; According to Article 44 (1) of the Contract Law and Article 55 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, clauses in mining rights transfer contracts that can take effect without approval shall take effect from the time they are established in accordance with the law. At this point, the mining rights transfer contract is not an invalid contract, but a contract that has not yet been fully effective.

7、 Dispute case between Xue Mengyi and four others on the equity transfer contract with Tibet Guoneng Mining Development Co., Ltd. and Tibet Longhui Mining Co., Ltd

（1） Basic facts of the case

On July 12, 2013, Guoneng Company signed a "Cooperation Agreement" with Xue Mengyi and Xue Mengjiao, agreeing that Xue Mengyi and Xue Mengjiao would transfer all their equity in the mining enterprise Longhui Company to Guoneng Company. After the signing of the cooperation agreement, Guoneng Company made partial payments and handed over the qualifications and financial certificates of Longhui Company, but did not complete the procedures for industrial and commercial registration of equity transfer. On November 28th, Xue Mengyi and Xue Mengjiao applied for a replacement of Longhui Company's business license on the grounds of loss, and the following day, they transferred the equity already transferred to Guoneng Company to Wang Rusheng and Xue Yunqi again. Guoneng Company filed a lawsuit requesting confirmation of the legality and validity of the Cooperation Agreement signed between Guoneng Company and Xue Mengyi and Xue Mengjiao, and their continued performance. Xue Mengyi and Xue Mengjiao will handle the industrial and commercial registration procedures for their equity changes; Confirm that the transfer contract signed by Xue Mengyi, Xue Mengjiao, Wang Rusheng, and Xue Yunqi is invalid. Xue Mengyi and Xue Mengjiao counterclaimed and requested Guoneng Company to return relevant certificates and pay for the economic losses caused to them due to the ineffective cooperation agreement.

（2） Judgment results

The High People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region confirmed in the first instance that the Cooperation Agreement is valid. Guoneng Company shall pay the remaining equity transfer price to Xue Mengyi and Xue Mengjiao, and Xue Mengyi, Xue Mengjiao, and Longhui Company shall cooperate with Guoneng Company to handle the industrial and commercial registration procedures for equity changes after paying the remaining equity transfer price; Confirm that the transfer contract signed by Xue Mengyi, Xue Mengjiao, Wang Rusheng, and Xue Yunqi is invalid. The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that the nature of the Cooperation Agreement and the transfer contract should be equity transfer, not mining rights transfer; The equity transfer agreement of mining enterprises is not a contract that requires approval, registration, and other procedures in accordance with laws and administrative regulations to take effect. The "Cooperation Agreement" is established and takes effect in accordance with the law. Xue Mengyi and Xue Mengjiao transferred their equity again through fraudulent means and ultra-low consideration. The transfer of equity by Wang Ruyun and Xue Yunqi does not meet the conditions for obtaining it in good faith and should be considered invalid. The Cooperation Agreement should continue to be fulfilled. The second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

Equity and mining rights are different civil rights, and their nature, content, and applicable laws should be different. The equity of mining enterprises belongs to the rights of members and is enjoyed by shareholders, subject to the adjustment of the Company Law. The transfer of equity in mining enterprises that leads to changes in shareholders does not necessarily result in a change in the subject of mining rights. It does not constitute a legal transfer of equity in mining enterprises, evading administrative supervision, and achieving the purpose of essentially illegal mining rights transfer. It is not appropriate to consider it as a disguised transfer of mining rights, and the decree is invalid. If the equity transfer contract also stipulates substantive contents such as the transfer of mining rights and the change of mining rights holders, the effectiveness of such contents should be determined in accordance with the laws and regulations on mining rights transfer.

【Zhao Xudong】 is a professor and doctoral supervisor at China University of Political Science and Law.

【Comments】

The typicality and representativeness of this case lies in fully reflecting the special relationship between the mining rights transfer contract and the equity transfer of mining enterprises, demonstrating the most common litigation positions and claims of the parties in such disputes, as well as the conflicts and entanglements in the application of law and principles faced by the people's court in hearing such cases.

Regarding the nature of such contracts, it should be said that in terms of the form of the contract itself, there are significant differences between mining rights transfer contracts and mining enterprise equity transfer contracts in terms of contract subject, contract subject matter, and even contract content. In this regard, the distinction and analysis made by the judgment in this case between equity and mining rights is undoubtedly correct, and it is therefore established that the legal relationship in this case belongs to equity transfer rather than mining rights transfer.

It is worth noting that the special issue of such cases lies in whether they constitute an act of circumvention of the law, namely the transfer of equity, which is actually a transfer of mining rights, and the transfer of mining rights is essentially illegal through the formal legal transfer of equity of mining enterprises. There are objectively two completely different opinions and propositions regarding this. One view is that the legal nature of the contract or behavior should be determined based on the formal requirements of the contract. As long as the transferor of the contract is a shareholder and the subject matter of the contract is equity, it should be recognized as equity transfer. Only when the mining enterprise is the transferor and the mining rights are the agreed subject matter, can it be recognized as a mining rights transfer contract. Another view is that for such contracts, their legal nature cannot be simply determined based on the surface form of the contract. If the facts can indeed indicate that the parties are transferring mining rights through equity transfer in order to avoid legal restrictions or procedural requirements, it is a typical evasion of legal behavior and should be recognized as mining rights transfer and its effectiveness should be determined accordingly. As for the circumstances that constitute such avoidance behavior, a comprehensive judgment can be made based on factors such as the subjective intention clearly expressed by the parties during the contracting process, whether all or part of the equity is transferred, and whether the mining rights are all or part of the assets of the target company.

This type of problem not only exists in the transfer of equity in mining enterprises, but also in contractual relationships involving mandatory contract approval and rights transfer restrictions, such as the transfer of equity in foreign-invested companies and the transfer of equity in real estate development companies with land use rights. Its proper resolution depends on the revision and improvement of national legislation. The judgment opinion in this case reflects the value judgment and judicial orientation of the judges in recognizing and maintaining the effectiveness of the equity transfer contract of mining enterprises in the case. It is not only a sufficient reflection and expression of an opinion, but also an important driving force to completely solve the above problems.

8、 Huang Guojun's Partnership Dispute with Dalinwan Mining Plant and Su Zhichang in Zunyi City

（1） Basic facts of the case

Dalinwan Mining Factory was originally a sole proprietorship enterprise of Su Zhichang, and obtained a mining license and business license on July 31, 2003. On December 20, 2003, Huang Guojun signed a partnership agreement with Su Zhichang, stipulating that Su Zhichang would provide mining permits, business licenses, and other mining procedures. Huang Guojun would invest in the existing mining area to mine Well 4, and bear its own profits and losses, as well as mine safety responsibilities. Subsequently, although the nature of the Dalinwan Mining Plant was changed from a sole proprietorship to a partnership, the partners also underwent multiple changes. However, Huang Guojun has been engaged in the mining activities of Well 4 with the mining license and business license of the Dalinwan Mining Plant, and has paid a total of 108120 yuan in fees such as certification fees, documentation fees, and public security fees. On August 1, 2008, the Dalinwan Mining Plant was punished by the competent department of land and resources for illegally transferring mining rights. On June 8, 2009, the Dalinwan Mining Plant was ordered by the safety production supervision and management department to stop mining and rectify within a specified period of time due to the lack of a safety production license. The Dalinwan Mining Plant did not carry out technical renovation on Well 4, resulting in Huang Guojun being unable to continue mining. Huang Guojun filed a lawsuit requesting a compensation of 2.2 million yuan from the Dalinwan Mining Plant.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance judgment of the People's Court of Honghuagang District, Zunyi City rejected Huang Guojun's lawsuit request. The Intermediate People's Court of Zunyi City, Guizhou Province held in the second instance that Huang Guojun signed a partnership agreement with Su Zhichang to independently engage in mining activities within the mining license area of the Dalinwan Mining Plant, without obtaining approval and change registration from relevant administrative authorities, which violated the national approval regulations on the development, utilization and protection of mineral resources and damaged the national management order of mineral resources. After the Dalinwan Mining Plant changed its registration as a partnership enterprise, Huang Guojun was not registered as a partner. The above behavior is actually affiliated with mining, and the partnership agreement should be invalid. Dalinwan Mining Plant has a significant fault in this regard. The second instance court ruled that Dalinwan Mining Plant compensated Huang Guojun with 136620 yuan in losses.

（3） Typical significance

Mineral resources are non renewable. In order to protect and reasonably develop mineral resources, enterprises that have obtained mining licenses must strictly comply with the laws and regulations on the development and utilization of mineral resources. If the mining rights holder signs a partnership agreement with another person, but there is no actual fact of partnership operation, and the party implementing the mining act pays the affiliated fees, invests in the name of the mining rights holder, is responsible for its own profits and losses, and independently engages in mining of mineral resources to achieve the illegal purpose of evading administrative supervision, the partnership agreement shall be deemed invalid. The administrative penalty imposed on mining rights holders shall not affect their civil liability. On the basis of clarifying the fault of the parties involved, the people's court determines the civil liability of each party based on the size of the fault, which is of positive significance in regulating the lawful exercise of mining rights by mining rights holders and maintaining the order of mineral resource circulation.

【Commentary Expert】 Cai Xueen, a representative of the National People's Congress and a lawyer at Hubei Dewei Junshang Law Firm.

【Comments】

Firstly, both trial courts have made it clear that the partnership agreement signed between the mining rights holder and others is invalid. In this case, the mining rights holder signed a partnership agreement with others, allowing others to engage in mining activities independently within the mining license area under their name, but failed to handle approval and change registration in accordance with the law, in violation of the national approval regulations on the development, utilization, and protection of mineral resources. The people's court, in accordance with Article 52 of the Contract Law, determined that the contract agreement was invalid and denied the mining rights holder's attempt to illegally transfer the mining rights through partnership, thus protecting the national management order of mineral resources in accordance with the law. Secondly, after the people's court determines that the partnership agreement is invalid, in accordance with Article 58 of the Contract Law, it further clarifies the responsibilities that both parties should bear based on their respective fault levels. The act of mining rights holders transferring mining rights in disguised form through contracting violates the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations such as the Mineral Resources Law, and should bear corresponding responsibilities for their faults.

Currently, some mining enterprises still engage in a large number of unlicensed mining activities of mineral resources in various forms (including leasing, cooperation, partnerships, etc.). The state has established strict approval and filing procedures for mineral resource extraction and development activities. On the one hand, in judicial practice, it is necessary to strictly identify and grasp the situation where illegal transfer of mining rights damages national interests. On the other hand, based on clarifying the specific circumstances and facts of each case, the effectiveness and nature of cooperation agreements between mining rights holders and others should be determined.

9、 Dispute over Special Area Cooperation Exploration Contract between Xinjiang Lingang Resource Investment Co., Ltd. and Sichuan Jinhe Mining Co., Ltd

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 10, 2011, Lingang Company and Jinhe Company signed a "Cooperative Exploration and Development Agreement", which stipulated that after Lingang Company compensated Jinhe Company with 35 million yuan, both parties jointly established a project company and transferred Jinhe Company's exploration rights to the project company's name when conditions were met. On October 25, 2011, Lingang Company made an actual payment of 35 million yuan to Jinhe Company. On November 22, 2013, Lingang Company notified the termination of the contract on the grounds that the cooperative exploration operation area is located in the Tashkurgan Wildlife Nature Reserve in Xinjiang, but Jinhe Company replied by refusing. Jinhe Company filed a lawsuit requesting confirmation that the termination of the contract by Lingang Company is invalid; Confirm the validity of the 'Cooperative Exploration and Development Agreement'. Lingang Company counterclaims and requests the termination of the "Cooperative Exploration and Development Agreement", and Jinhe Company refunds the cooperation compensation of 35 million yuan and compensates for the losses.

（2） Judgment results

The Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region ruled in the first instance that the termination of the contract by Lingang Company was invalid, and both parties continued to fulfill the "Cooperative Exploration and Development Agreement", rejecting the counterclaim request of Lingang Company. The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that the exploration rights involved in the case were located within the Tashkurgan Wildlife Nature Reserve in Xinjiang. The nature reserve was established first, and the exploration rights of Jinhe Company were obtained later. Based on the "Cooperative Exploration and Development Agreement", both parties knew or should have known that exploration and development of mineral resources were not allowed within the nature reserve. This agreement violates the prohibitive provisions of the Nature Reserve Regulations. If the agreement is deemed valid and continues to be fulfilled, it will cause serious damage to the natural environment and ecology, and damage the public interests of the environment. Therefore, the agreement shall be deemed invalid according to law, and the cooperation compensation of 35 million yuan collected by Jinhe Company shall be refunded. The losses claimed by Lingang Company shall be partially compensated by Jinhe Company at a discount, and partially borne by Lingang Company itself or resolved separately during the liquidation of the project company. The second instance court revoked the first instance judgment and made a revision.

（3） Typical significance

The contradiction between environmental protection and economic development is more prominent in special areas such as nature reserves, scenic spots, key ecological functional areas, ecologically sensitive areas, and fragile areas. The people's court should review and execute relevant cases based on the national and provincial planning of the main functional areas of land space, fully consider the different functional positioning of various functional areas, and determine different processing ideas. For environmental resource disputes in optimized development areas, especially key development areas, more consideration can be given to the need for rational utilization of environmental capacity to develop the economy. For environmental resource disputes in restricted and prohibited development areas, especially in areas with designated ecological protection red lines, the strictest protection measures should be implemented. For the exploration and mining of mineral resources contracts signed in the above-mentioned special areas, even if they have been approved by the competent department of land and resources, the people's court shall still conduct a special review of the effectiveness of the contract. If the contract violates the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations and damages the environmental public interests, it shall be deemed invalid in accordance with the law.

Chen Demin is a professor and doctoral supervisor at Chongqing University.

【Comments】

This case has gone through two trials and has been concluded. The results of the first and second trials are different, and the difference lies in the legal determination of the effectiveness of the Cooperative Exploration and Development Agreement. The first instance court held that although the mining rights involved in the case were located within the scope of the nature reserve, there was no situation where the "Cooperative Exploration and Development Agreement" could not be realized, and both parties should continue to fulfill the agreement. The first instance emphasized that the parties to the contract had expressed the same intention and had fulfilled the agreement for two years, but ignored the external requirement for the contract to take effect, that is, the exploration rights stipulated in the agreement are located in a natural reserve and harm the environmental public interests. The second instance court ruled that the agreement signed by both parties was invalid in accordance with the prohibitive provisions of the Nature Reserve Regulations, and rejected the first instance judgment on continued performance. By comparison, it can be seen that the second instance of this case has the following three exemplary functions: firstly, the determination of the effectiveness of a mining rights dispute contract cannot be limited to the realization of the contract purpose, but should be based on the objective supporting elements of the contract's establishment and effectiveness in accordance with the law. The second is to focus on playing the role of environmental justice in safeguarding environmental public interests, and the judiciary should systematically and completely implement environmental regulations to maintain the operation of the management system of nature reserves. The third is to vigorously exert the judicial correction function, and the mining rights contract cannot be directly recognized as valid due to the approval of the administrative department. The effectiveness of contracts involving public interests should be reviewed ex officio.

The second instance judgment result meets the requirements of ecological civilization construction and green development, and has guiding significance. Especially in ecologically sensitive areas and other ecological red line designated areas, judicial decisions should strictly adhere to the priority of environmental protection and the ecological red line management system. It is strictly prohibited to arbitrarily change the use of natural ecological spaces and prevent unreasonable resource development from damaging the ecological environment.

10、 Case of Infringement Dispute between Tuyangangtou An Yela Stone Mine in Yunhe County and State Grid Zhejiang Electric Power Company over Mineral Overlay

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 29, 2004, the Yelashi Mine in Yunhe County obtained the mining rights for Yelashi. On March 18, 2013, the Zhejiang North Fuzhou UHV AC transmission and transformation project received approval from the National Development and Reform Commission. On April 26, 2013, State Grid Zhejiang Electric Power Company contracted the Zhejiang North Fuzhou UHV AC project line project to outsiders for construction. On August 20, 2014, the Yelashi Mine in Yunhe County reported to the line engineering project department that the power line between the 5R67 and 5R66-5R68 stakes of the Zhejiang North Fuzhou 1000KV AC transmission line crossed its mining area. After verification, the transmission line route does indeed conflict with the scope of the pyrophyllite mining area in Yunhe County. On December 26, 2014, the ultra-high voltage AC transmission and transformation project involved in the Zhejiang North Fuzhou case was officially put into operation. The Yelashi Mine in Yunhe County filed a lawsuit on the grounds that it was unable to conduct normal blasting mining and requested that State Grid Zhejiang Electric Power Company immediately dismantle the transmission line established in its mining area.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Yunhe County, Zhejiang Province held in the first instance that the Zhejiang North Fuzhou UHV AC transmission and transformation project is a national key project approved and constructed by the National Development and Reform Commission in accordance with the law. The investment is huge, and it has been completed and officially put into operation. If it is demolished, it will cause significant losses to the national interests and social public interests. Therefore, the lawsuit request for the Yela stone mine in Yunhe County is not supported. If the Yelashi Mine in Yunhe County believes that the installation of power lines by State Grid Zhejiang Electric Power Company has caused losses to it, it can be resolved through separate negotiations or litigation. The Intermediate People's Court of Lishui City, Zhejiang Province held in the second instance that even though the construction of supporting piles and the installation of electric wires by State Grid Zhejiang Electric Power Company constituted a hindrance to the mining rights of Yelashi Mine in Yunhe County, considering the important role played by the project in meeting the needs of power transmission between Fujian and Zhejiang and improving the reliability of power supply in the East China power grid, and the huge investment in the project and its formal operation, such as demolition, It will inevitably have a significant impact on the power supply in Zhejiang Province, which not only involves the economic interests of Yelashe Mine, but also involves social and public interests. The second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

Before constructing railways, factories, reservoirs, oil pipelines, transmission lines, and various large buildings or building complexes, the construction unit must inquire with the provincial land and resources authorities about the distribution and mining situation of mineral resources in the area where the proposed project is located. Without the approval of departments authorized by the State Council, important mineral deposits shall not be covered. Without approval and evaluation, signing compensation agreements with mining rights holders, registering mineral resource reserves, and other legal procedures, the overlying party of the deposit constructed projects within the mining rights holder's mining area, overlying mineral resources, and infringing on the legitimate interests of the mining rights holder. However, in terms of the way of assuming liability for infringement, comprehensive consideration should be given to factors such as the national key construction projects such as transmission lines, which involve national interests and social public interests, huge investment and have already been put into operation, and it is not appropriate to directly order the demolition. In the case where the mining rights holder only requests the removal of obstacles, the people's court should fully explain and inform them that they can claim appropriate forms of responsibility separately, taking into account national interests, social public interests, and the legitimate rights and interests of the mining rights holder, and adapting to national industrial policies and socio-economic development needs.

Chen Demin is a professor and doctoral supervisor at Chongqing University.

【Comments】

The first instance judgment of this case does not support the lawsuit request to demolish the Yelashi Mine in Yunhe County and establish a transmission line within its mining area, based on the grounds that the mining engineering project cannot interfere with the power transmission needs of Fujian and Zhejiang and cannot affect the normal operation of the power supply reliability of the East China Power Grid, and proposes to negotiate or file a separate lawsuit for resolution. The second instance upheld the first instance judgment in accordance with the law. This case has two guiding significance: firstly, the issue of balancing the overall and local interests in judicial judgment. In response to the fact that the Zhejiang North Fuzhou UHV AC transmission and transformation project has been officially put into operation, the judicial judgment considers the balance between social public interests and the economic interests of Yelashi Mine. Both the first and second trials ensure the priority of the overall public interests in accordance with the law. The second is the exercise of the right of judicial interpretation in judicial decisions. The first instance court did not directly take the demolition of the transmission line established in its mining area as a way of assuming responsibility according to the plaintiff's request, but instead informed the parties through the judge's interpretation that they could claim an appropriate form of responsibility separately. This approach is the result of balancing interests, which not only takes into account social and public interests, but also provides possibilities for the realization of the legitimate rights and interests of mining rights holders.

Coordinating the relationship between the overall public interest and local individual interests is the key to fair justice, and it is essential to regulate the reasonable boundaries of individual interests for the public interest. The interpretation power of judges in judgments is one of the ways to provide judicial relief for the rights and interests of the parties involved, which is conducive to promoting the fairness and efficiency of litigation proceedings and enhancing judicial credibility.