당선무효확인 등 청구의소
1. Of the instant lawsuits, the decision that selected the Plaintiff from the president and the decision that elected C as the president is invalid.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The status of the party is that the Plaintiff is an occupant of B Apartment-gu D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in Seocho-gu, Changwon-si and the pertinent representative, and the Defendant is an autonomous management body comprised of the representatives elected by the occupants of the instant apartment.
B. 1) The election commission of the apartment of this case under the Defendant (hereinafter “instant election commission”)
On April 2, 2019, the election commission publicly announced one chairperson and two auditors of the defendant. Three representatives (No. 1 C, No. 2F, and No. 3) of each building, including the plaintiff, including the plaintiff. 2) The election commission of this case announced the public announcement of the candidate registration and the guidance for election ballot counting on April 4, 2019, and the voting was held from April 5, 2019 to April 7, 2019 through the election campaign period from April 8, 2019 to April 19:00 to April 7, 2019.
(3) Of 613 electors of the apartment of this case, C obtained 53 votes, F 22 marks, and the Plaintiff obtained 87 marks, respectively, and the Plaintiff became a majority and the winning winner. (c) The Plaintiff became a majority and the winning winner. F and C were as of April 8, 2019, with the thickness of the “candidate A” in the election commission of this case No. 3 as of April 8, 2019.
4.8. Election Management Members present a proposal for the thickness of election management members by conducting an election campaign by no later than 18 days a day.
Pursuant to the appropriate disposition, the State shall take appropriate measures.
Around 19:00 on April 8, 2019, the instant Election Commission (No. 2) attended by four of the six incumbent members of the meeting (Chairperson G and members H, I, and J). Around 19:00, the instant election commission held that “A candidate three (3) was illegal election campaign,” and raised an objection against the candidate No. 1 and 2, and the candidate’s list of the candidates No. 3 is invalid. However, the instant election commission made a resolution to maintain the Plaintiff’s representative position (No. 3).