당선무효확인의 소
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit and the plaintiff's co-litigation's application for intervention shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.
1. The summary of the claim and the Plaintiff’s co-litigation intervenor seek confirmation that Defendant C religious organization (hereinafter “Defendant C”)’s election at the 32th general meeting supervision president, which was implemented on September 27, 2016 (hereinafter “instant election”) was invalid, since Defendant D was elected as the chief supervisor of the Supervisory Board.
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment of departure from Defendant C and no longer was in the position of Defendant C’s partner or trading partner.
In addition, the plaintiff should dispute the validity of the election of this case according to the procedure within the period set by the doctrine and the doctrine of the defendant C, but the plaintiff raised a civil suit.
In addition, according to the Public Official Election Act which applies mutatis mutandis to the above doctrine and the election of public officials, only candidates are eligible for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's lawsuit is unlawful in this regard.
B. 1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidity or absence of a resolution to elect a representative or officer of an organization that is a kind of internal dispute between the Plaintiff and D, or in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidity or absence of a resolution to elect a representative or officer, the defendant cannot be deemed to have an effect on the pertinent organization, even if the judgment accepting the claim is rendered, and therefore, it cannot be the most effective and appropriate method to resolve the dispute between the parties surrounding the status of the representative. Therefore, there is no benefit in confirmation.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da4104 delivered on Nov. 27, 1998). (b) Even if the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant D, who is the representative of the supervisor, and received the quoted judgment, the judgment cannot be deemed to have an effect on the defendant C, and it is most fundamentally resolving the dispute between the parties surrounding the status of the representative.