2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant;

The effect of the Respondent's decision on March 5, 2012, which selected non-applicant as a candidate for the election district in Seoul ○○○ election district in March 19, 2012 is suspended.

In full view of the records and the overall purport of the examination of the case, the following facts are substantiated.

The respondent is a political party established on the basis of Article 8 of the Constitution and the Political Parties Act. The applicant is an active member of the National Assembly belonging to the respondent, and the 19th National Assembly member election, which was enforced on April 11, 2012, applied for the recommendation of the candidate to the candidate recommendation committee for the central party affiliated with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Gongcheon Committee").

In the election of the 19th National Assembly member, the respondent introduced a system that excludes approximately 25% of the lower competitive power among the active members of the National Assembly belonging to the Respondent (a position that excludes approximately 32 persons from the number of persons), in principle, from the Gongcheon (hereinafter referred to as the “instant system”).

On March 5, 2012, the respondent determined that the applicant was included in the lower 32 persons after compiling a series of research results, such as public opinion polls conducted to select members of the active duty service who will be the female of this case. On March 5, 2012, the respondent decided to recommend non-applicant applicants as candidates for the Seoul ○○ constituency (hereinafter “instant decision”).

2. Summary of the applicant’s assertion

The decision of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, such as infringing upon the applicant’s right to attend a public office under the Constitution. Thus, the applicant shall seek provisional disposition on the purport of the application in order to prevent irrecoverable damages.

① On February 16, 2012, the respondent made a public announcement that “134 of the members of the active duty service who are members of the respondent and 25% of them, i.e., 33.5, shall be excluded.” However, the respondent was subject to the investigation of only 93 persons, not 134 persons, and the remainder was exempted from the investigation. In other words, the respondent granted preferential treatment to a large number of active duty members who are exempted from the investigation. Accordingly, the respondent should make the number of persons equivalent to the “25%” published by the respondent as of February 16, 2012. In this case, it is clear that the applicant is not subject to the Lao of this case.

② Among the “competitive competitiveness index” with 50% of the female evaluation items, the “internal competitiveness index” (25%) of the “competitive competitiveness index” refers to a fundamental problem that makes it impossible to apply where there are only one applicant in the same constituency. The “external competitiveness index” (25%) is considerably unfavorable to the National Assembly members holding a constituency in the Seoul Metropolitan area. The assessment items of the female of this case are not based on the assessment items of parliamentary activities, which are the most important criteria. The assessment criteria of the female of this case are inappropriate as many features.

③ In other words, even though the respondent had already conducted in-depth public opinion polls, the respondent conducted an in-depth public opinion poll at his discretion, and there is no ground to believe that additional public opinion poll can be conducted under the Respondent’s official opinion test standards, and the above additional public opinion poll is unlawful. In addition, the Respondent arbitrarily reflected the results of the two public opinion poll only in the examination, and there are many errors in the selection of samples subject to additional public opinion poll.

④ The respondent did not provide the applicant with an opportunity to interview or vindicate during the selection process of the female subject to the bar, and the examination data is not disclosed.

⑤ The respondent has recruited a candidate who is more competitive than the applicant, which is abuse of the discretion of the respondent.

3. Determination

Article 8 (2) of the Constitution provides that "a political party shall be democratic, and shall have an organization necessary to participate in the formation of the political will of the people." Accordingly, Article 31 of the Political Parties Act provides that "the recommendation of a candidate for election of a political party shall be democratic," and Article 47 (1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "a political party may recommend a candidate to the party members within the fixed number of elections for each constituency in an election." In addition, Article 8 (2) provides that "a party may recommend a candidate to the party members within the fixed number of elections to be elected." In addition, Article 47 (1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "a party shall comply with democratic procedures if it recommends a candidate pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)." Thus, the process of the election of a political party and

However, autonomy of a political party shall also be guaranteed to the maximum extent (Article 8 of the Constitution, Article 37 of the Political Parties Act), a party nomination process and a party nomination decision are basically a matter to be decided autonomously and autonomously by the party constitution and party regulations, which are the autonomous norms of a political party. As such, a party nomination decision, etc. is in accordance with the party constitution and party regulations, and thus, its validity cannot be denied unless it lacks legality and rationality because it violates the above principles of democracy of a political party, the Constitution, and the Political Parties Act, etc. In addition, the Lao system of this case was introduced by the respondent at the end of various discussions on the 19th National Assembly members election, and there is no direct provision on the relevant statutes, party constitution, or party regulations. Therefore, in determining the illegality of the decision of this case, it is necessary to consider the autonomy of the political party as above and the introduction of the Lao system of this case.

In full view of the purport of the records and examination, the purport of the female of this case system itself seems to be just as seen earlier, and the current method that excludes persons equivalent to a certain ratio (or a certain number of persons) from the open space, barring special circumstances, is also one of the various means in which the respondent, who is a political party, has the discretion to introduce the Respondent. In addition, for example, the specific ratio and number of the National Assembly members to be excluded from the open space, the detailed examination factors and detailed allocation of the female crew, the examination methods, whether to give individual applicants an opportunity to interview or vindicate during the examination process, and whether to disclose the examination data, unless there are special circumstances to deem that there is a violation of democratic procedures or due process, such as whether it was determined without any justifiable reason or it was substantially arbitrarily applied or otherwise publicly announced.

In light of various circumstances recognized in light of the overall purport of records and examination, including whether a member of the National Assembly, who is subject to investigation in this case, is a few members of the National Assembly, and what is "ratio (e.g. 25%)" and "number of persons (e. 32 persons), etc., the respondent's position is not clear. The female evaluation items of this case also do not seem to be rational as the applicant's assertion, but there are some inevitable grounds in view of the nature of the political act of the party participating in the formation of the national political will through an election. This is insufficient to conclude that the decision of this case where the applicant recruited the applicant from the election of this case as the object of the female, excluding the public opinion poll, becomes invalid against democratic procedures or due process (the illegality of the public opinion poll asserted by the applicant cannot be recognized only by the data submitted by the applicant).

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the prior applicant’s argument on the premise different from the above judgment of the court, and the instant application is not recognized as a preserved right.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the motion of this case is dismissed as there is no ground.

Judges Han Chang-hun (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Therefore, the respondent seems to be in need of embodying the criteria and operational guidelines of the female of this case and clarifying the party constitution and party rules.