당선자지위확인 청구의 소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Defendant, a non-profit corporation established pursuant to C law, is a regional DDR, and is a member of the board of directors in harmony with the Defendant. 2) The Defendant, on December 24, 2018, had the expiration of the term of office of the former executives, and the Defendant, on December 24, 2018, announced the execution of an election for executive officers, such as the chief executive officer from January 10, 2019 to December 31, 2018, to appoint one chief executive officer, one vice chief executive officer, five to seven directors, and the elector shall be the defendant’s representative, the election day, and the candidate registration period from December 27, 2018 to December 31, 2018.
3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff gifts to some representatives of the Defendant before the candidate registration for the chief director office (hereinafter “instant gift act”).
On January 1, 2019, after the candidate registration was completed, text messages attached to the name of the plaintiff to the defendant's representative on January 1, 2019 (the content is a new person).
hereinafter referred to as "the act of sending the letter of this case"
(4) On January 10, 2019, the Defendant held a general meeting for the election of executive officers (hereinafter “instant election”), and among 106 incumbent representatives, the Plaintiff obtained 64 votes and 41 votes from the instant election, and the Plaintiff was elected as the president.
B. 1) E is the Defendant Election Commission (hereinafter “Election Commission”) on January 17, 2019.
(2) The Plaintiff submitted a written objection to the effect that “the instant letter sending act and the instant gift constitutes an illegal election campaign, and thus the Plaintiff’s election is null and void.” (2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff was only sent once because the Plaintiff sent the instant letter in advance and processed the instant letter in advance, as the Plaintiff did not cancel the time.
In the case of the gift act of this case, it was known to the winners, and it was included in the defendant's representative.