Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In the 13th election for the National Assembly member in the Incheon Northern-gu, which was implemented on April 26, 1988, Defendant 2 sought a judgment that the decision of the election commission for the local constituency should become invalid as the elected person.

2. First, we examine the plaintiffs' assertion of invalidation of election.

(1) In manufacturing the election campaign bulletins, the plaintiffs were mostly posted instead of the photographs and experiences of the candidates for the party branch in other local districts, including the plaintiff et al., but the defendant also re-produced the election campaign bulletins at 20:00 on the election day, but it was virtually difficult to serve them on the electors in the local constituency before the election day because they completed the preparation for sending at 20:00 on the election day (in the case of an absentee, there was no correction method since the voting was completed, and there was no correction method). Therefore, the defendant was demoted to the election according to the direction of the National Election Commission, even though the distribution of the newly produced election campaign bulletins should be postponed until the erroneous procedure is corrected. Thus, the above unfair election management affected the result of the election.

On the other hand, although Nonparty 1’s testimony was made by Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2’s election campaign bulletin and Nonparty 4’s new statement on the election campaign bulletin for Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s election campaign bulletin, Nonparty 1’s new statement on the reason that it would have been assumed that it would have been genuine, and that Nonparty 2’s new statement on the reason that Nonparty 1’s election campaign bulletin was sent out by Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 3’s new statement on the reason that it would have been contrary to Nonparty 1’s testimony, and that Nonparty 1’s new statement on the reason that it would have been made by Nonparty 2’s election campaign bulletin and that it would have been contrary to Nonparty 1’s request for election campaign bulletin to Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 2’s new statement on the reason that it would have been contrary to Nonparty 3’s testimony, and that it would have been contrary to Nonparty 1’s new statement on the reason that it had been made by Nonparty 3’s election campaign bulletin and its new statement on the reason that it had been made by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s witness testimony.

According to the above facts, it is recognized that there was an erroneous production of 40 or more of the election campaign bulletins produced and sent by the defendant in the district.

However, according to the above evidence No. 21-1 (No. 1 witness examination report) of the defendant local constituency, since the number of households in the defendant local constituency is 64,000 or more, compared to the number of the election campaign bulletins produced erroneously in this number, not only is it small but also according to the above facts acknowledged, the defendant is aware that he again produced the election campaign bulletins after receiving a port from the side of the party candidate, and requested the competent post office to send them by mail and took measures necessary for correction, and even if some of the newly produced election campaign bulletins were not served to the elector, it cannot be deemed that there was confusion in the exercise of elector's right to vote due to delivery of the above erroneous election campaign bulletins, and therefore, it cannot be said that the violation of the above management execution affects the result of the election.

In addition, it can not be said that the defendant's holding of an election according to the response of the National Election Commission is an error in the management and execution of the above election.

(2) In the case of the above local constituency, the Plaintiffs were found to have not received at all the election campaign bulletins from the beginning. However, there is no proof as to this point.

(3) The Plaintiffs were involved in the police during the campaign of the election, and the number of voters who actually participated in the voting is below the legal quota, but the Defendant requested the replacement of the voting witnesses to each political party or proceeded with the voting without designating them.

According to the statement of the evidence No. 5 (written confirmation of facts) and the testimony of Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 5, the Uniform Democratic Party reported to the Defendant at least 20:00 days prior to the voting day to Non-Party 8 and Non-Party 5, and it is recognized that some of the voting witnesses belonging to the Uniform Democratic Party reported to the Defendant as a voting witness, but not commissioned, and that some of the voting witnesses belonging to the Uniform Democratic Party failed to participate in the voting on the wind that the police was connected

However, in full view of the evidence Nos. 5 and the whole purport of the pleading by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 as a whole, it can be found that there were circumstances that the party members were unable to perform their normal duties due to the relationship in which the party members occupied the Defendant’s office while making an objection against the mistake in the election campaign bulletin, and that there was no evidence to prove that Plaintiff 1 selected and reported the voting witness to the voting district election commission, or that there was a fact that he reported the replacement of the witness. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an error in the management and execution of the above election because Plaintiff 1 failed to participate in the voting for the reason as alleged by the Plaintiffs.

(4) In the case of absentee voting, the Plaintiffs sent a ballot paper more than the number of absentees registered on the electoral registry, and if there is no voting notice slip to the electors (resident) in the region recorded on the electoral registry, the Plaintiffs issued the voting notice slip to the observer, thereby making an unjust voting. However, there is no proof as to this point.

(5) In the Defendant’s ballot counting, the Plaintiffs conducted a ballot counting without a camping-counting witness, and conducted an unlawful ballot counting, such as treating all of them as effective marks, even though the number of votes in which the actual voter and the ballot papers are inconsistent is 16,514 marks, and the number of votes with no ballot papers is replaced by a 16,514 marks, proxy voting, string-type voting, string-type voting, and ballot papers with no official seal of the chairman of the voting district election management. However, there is no proof as to this point.

(6) The Plaintiffs asserts that Defendant 2 engaged in illegal election campaigns as follows.

Defendant 2 opened a supporters’ association office prior to the public announcement of the election day, posted posters and banners to the entire election district, and set up one election liaison office for each Dong as well as the executive officers and employees of the local government, such as the head of the Tong/Ban, and the Korea Overseas Construction Association. The Defendant 2 provided cash or entertainment by mobilization of the executive officers and employees of the local government, and provided them with his poster on the propaganda poster produced and posted by the Defendant Committee, thereby damaging other candidates’ propaganda posters.

According to the statement of evidence Nos. 9 (name cards) and each testimony of the above witnesses and non-party 4, the witness of the non-party 9, whose authenticity is recognized by the testimony of the non-party 9, they conduct an election campaign by providing food and goods to 30 residents, such as the head of Tong/Ban, etc., on April 25, 198 from Defendant 2 to 30. The testimony of the non-party 2 and the non-party 4 cannot be believed, and there is no evidence to prove that the non-party 9 established the office of the non-party 2's supporters' association in the third floor before the Incheon North Incheon Northern District Tax Office for the defendant 2 who is the candidate for the non-party 9 among March 198. However, the testimony of the non-party 2 and the non-party 4 to the purport that the members of the non-party 2, such as the head of Tong/Ban, carried out an election campaign by dividing the cash to the head of Ban.

In addition, the above illegal election campaign by the plaintiff's assertion can not be a ground for the invalidation of the election campaign, even if the party concerned is punished for each term as an election criminal.

3. Next, we examine the plaintiffs' assertion of invalidation of election.

The plaintiffs, when the above election management council manages the ballot counting in the above election, the absentee voting is based on the wrong election campaign bulletin, and the ballot papers have been changed, the ballot counting process has been clarified, the tickets without voting, and the proxy voting have been made. Therefore, even though all of them are treated as invalid, the above defendant 2 was found to be decided as the elected person, and therefore the decision on the elected person is invalid.

However, there is no evidence to deem that there was a mistake in the election campaign bulletin sent to the reported elector as alleged by the plaintiffs, or that there was a change in the ballot paper, or there was a mistake in the omission, such as a fluoral, proxy voting, etc., as above, the plaintiffs' claim for invalidation of the election on the premise that there is a ground

4. Therefore, all plaintiffs' claims are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)