Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

C The presidential election (hereinafter referred to as the “instant election”) took place on the B date, and the E candidate affiliated with the D Party was the largest shareholder and was decided as the elected person.

The total number of votes in the instant election is 32,807,908, and among them is 32,672,175, and the invalid vote is 135,733.

E The candidates indicated 13,423,800 of the valid vote, and 7,852,849 votes for the candidates of the F Party G in braille.

2. The plaintiff's assertion violated the National Election Commission Regulations concerning the preparation, public announcement, and issuance of advance ballot papers, the enactment of National Election Commission Regulations concerning the preparation, verification, and keeping of computer system operation programs, the restriction on the number of ballot-counting witnesses, and the collection of the advance pollbooks, while managing advance polling of the election of this case, and thereby, the election of this case is null and void.

3. Determination

A. As to the refusal to witness the advance polling boxes, the Plaintiff asserts that the witness of the advance polling box storage place is not allowed after the advance polling is terminated.

However, there are no regulations on the Public Official Election Act that stipulate the right to witness advance polling in advance polling and outside of the polling stations (Article 155(4) of the Public Official Election Act), witness of advance polling at advance polling stations (Article 162(1) of the Public Official Election Act), witness of advance polling at advance polling stations (Article 162(1) of the Public Official Election Act), witness of the Gu/Si/Gun election commission to send advance polling boxes within the jurisdiction of advance polling stations, and witness of the return envelope in which advance polling papers are enclosed (Article 158(6) of the Public Official Election

Therefore, even if the defendant did not permit the witness of the advance ballot box storage place, it cannot be said that the defendant violated the provisions concerning the management and execution of election affairs.