Address omitted

Attorney Lee - Law Firm *

Gohyeong-si Meeting

Attorneys Kim Jong-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Each disposition described in paragraph 1 shall be suspended until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive.

A. The Plaintiff was elected as the Defendant’s chairperson at the Defendant’s 138 extraordinary session held on July 7, 2010.

B. On November 15, 201, the Defendant submitted a non-Confidence resolution proposed by A, B, C, D, and non-affiliated E, a member of the 5th plenary session of the 151th extraordinary session of Korea, to the voting for the following reasons. As a result, the Defendant made a resolution of non-Confidence by the consent of a majority of the incumbent National Assembly members (hereinafter referred to as “non-Confidence resolution of this case”) by present at the 6 members of the said proposal at the 5th plenary session of Korea.

(1) Although the Plaintiff should contribute to the smooth operation of the City Council as the chairman of the local government on November 10, 201, the Plaintiff, at an affirmative assembly, on November 10, 201, on the 30th anniversary of the fact that the Plaintiff, as the chairman of the local government, should contribute to the smooth operation of the City Council. However, at an affirmative assembly, on November 10, 201, the door-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Day creation project for the video culture and tourism complex creation project, the Plaintiff made the remarks to the members of the Gu Council on the north of Korea, “

(2) The Plaintiff, which was held from April 30, 201 to May 8, 2011, violated the duty of integrity by receiving 100 points from the supervising department, such as teas, teas, teas, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-Confidence ground of No. 2 of this case"). (3) On April 27, 2011, the Plaintiff made a non-Confidence statement on April 27, 201 to gather character to the members of the Assembly (hereinafter referred to as "non-Confidence ground of No. 3 of this case"). (4) The Plaintiff made a non-Confidence statement on April 4, 201 to suspend the function of the Council's budget bill for the sake of "non-Confidence grounds of No. 4 of this case"). (hereinafter referred to as the "non-Confidence grounds of No. 3 of this case")

(5) On November 3, 2011, at the time of attending a sisterhood alliance agreement between Seodaemun-si and Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, the Plaintiff first moved in Seoul by using tolerance cars to see personal service, and even at the time of getting off, the Plaintiff violated the duty of integrity and integrity with three members of the executive board, and encouraged mutual communication among the members (hereinafter referred to as “non-Confidence grounds of No. 5”).

C. On November 16, 201, the Defendant decided to select a National Assembly member as a new Speaker with respect to the special election on the 6th extraordinary session held on November 16, 2011 (hereinafter “instant decision on the election for Speaker”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1-2 to Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

A. The grounds for No-Confidence No. 1 to No. 5 of this case do not constitute grounds for No-Confidence under Article 55(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, and thus, the resolution of No-Confidence in this case is unlawful. The resolution of No-Confidence in this case violated due process due to the Plaintiff’s failure to give the Plaintiff an opportunity to make oral

B. The decision on the withdrawal of the design of this case, based on the premise that the resolution on the non-Confidence of this case is lawful, is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as described in the "Related Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination

A. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. A

According to Article 55 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, if the chairperson or vice-chairperson of a local council violates Acts and subordinate statutes or performs his/her duties without justifiable grounds, a non-Confidence resolution may be passed by the local council. On the other hand, according to Article 49 of the Local Autonomy Act, the chairperson of the local council shall represent the local council, coordinate its proceedings, maintain

Therefore, the grounds for No. 1 to No. 5 of this case constitute grounds for No. Confidence as stipulated in Article 55 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act.

(1) In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 1 of this case as to the grounds for non-Confidence No. 1 of this case, the defendant rejected the above statement in the market site for the purpose of building the site of the "Stong-si Video Culture Complex Development Project" promoted by the literature Gyeong-si. The plaintiff tried to promote the above project in a form of lease of land owned by the literature Gyeong-si. On November 10, 201: 10:30 on November 10, 201, the above project meeting held by the door-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor held on the door-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Day is recognized that the plaintiff made the above statement "" on the north-gu Special Metropolitan City if the idea is stove and the idea is stove, but it is not deemed that the plaintiff's statement was made individually, in light of the content, purport, and context of the statement made by the plaintiff, and thus, the above statement did not violate any Act and subordinate statutes or is contrary to the chairperson's duty.

(2) In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 4 as to No. 2 of this case, the plaintiff's act of receiving the above Doc c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c.

(5) In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement No. 6-1 of the No. 5 of the instant case, the Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s Speaker, can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff used tolerance cars as Seoul on November 2, 201, a day before the day in order to attend the formal event held on November 3, 201 and a sisterhood alliance agreement ceremony of the Seoul Jung-gu Office, Seoul, with the qualification of the Defendant. However, even if the Plaintiff went to Seoul before the day before the official event, it is legitimate to use tolerance cars to participate in the official event, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff violated the duty of integrity. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

(6) Sub-determinations

Ultimately, the grounds for the non-Confidence resolution cited by the Defendant cannot be deemed as all the grounds for the non-Confidence resolution under Article 55 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act. Thus, without examining the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining arguments, the non-Confidence resolution of this case is unlawful.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2.B.

Since the non-Confidence resolution of this case is unlawful as seen earlier, the resolution on the appointment of the Speaker of this case under the premise that the non-Confidence resolution of this case is legitimate, the plaintiff's assertion is with merit.

C. Since it is recognized that the suspension of the validity of the instant disposition is urgently required to prevent irrecoverable damage to the Plaintiff due to the execution of the instant disposition, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the suspension of execution may have a significant impact on the public welfare due to the suspension of execution, the validity of the instant disposition shall be suspended ex officio until the judgment of

5. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges are unable to sign and seal due to the transfer of the civilian;

The presiding judge

Judges Kim Yong-nam