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

According to the purport of the whole records and examinations, the following facts are substantiated.

A. On December 11, 201, the respondent held a temporary national representative meeting (hereinafter “instant representative meeting”) for resolution on the agenda items, etc. indicated in the attached list at the Kashman Sports Center on December 14, 2011.

B. Upon the cooperation of the National Election Commission employees, the respondent confirmed the identification card of the representatives who arrived at the meeting of this case in front of the in-house gymnasium, and issued a certificate of representatives to the representatives following registration procedures, and had the representatives enter the galmnasium in-house gnasium.

C. The number of registered representatives of the respondent is 10,562. On December 11, 2011, the chairperson of the National Assembly of Representatives of the respondent attended by 5,284 members, a majority of registered representatives (5,282 members) around 14:37 on December 11, 201, and subsequently declared the opening of the instant conference and subsequently, the opening of the instant conference was declared. In the course of the proceedings, 15:00 on the same day, 5,367 members were present at around 15:0 on the same day.

D. On December 11, 201, the Respondent’s Chairman of the National Assembly of Representatives declared the commencement of voting on December 11, 201, following a debate on each item on the agenda listed in the separate sheet. The Respondent’s representatives presented their identification cards to the voting management employees, and then cast their votes by electronic voting methods so that they can choose approval and opposition by receiving an electronic voting card.

E. Meanwhile, on the other hand, 5,820 representatives who issued a representative certificate following registration procedures after checking identification cards by December 11, 201, which were immediately after the commencement of the above voting by employees of the National Election Commission.

F. The above voting was terminated on December 11, 201 17:50, and as a result, the number of representatives who participated in the voting was 5,067 persons who did not reach the majority of registered representatives, and 4,427 persons (87.36%) among them were approved.

G. As to whether the above resolution satisfies the quorum, the respondent held a party affairs committee with the authority of authoritative interpretation on the party constitution and the party rules to raise the problem from some delegates, and resolved that “the meaning of “Appearance” in the phrase of Article 107(2) of the Constitution refers to the representatives whose identification card is confirmed at the time of entering the competition place and whose certificate is issued as a representative. The chairperson of the National Assembly of Representatives of the Respondent declared that each of the above resolutions listed in the attached Table was passed after receiving the report of the outcome of the party affairs committee (hereinafter “the resolution of this case”).

H. There is no special provision on the respondent’s quorum for a meeting of the National Representatives of the Republic of Korea. Article 107(2) of the party constitution of the respondent provides that “All levels of meetings shall constitute a meeting with the attendance of at least 1/3 of the incumbent members unless otherwise provided for in the party constitution and the party constitution, and a resolution shall be made with the attendance of a majority of the incumbent members and with

2. Applicant's assertion

A. The respondent to be applied to the resolution of this case refers to the representatives who had remaining in the meeting place at the time of the resolution of this case at the time of the resolution of this case, which are the attendance of the majority of the incumbent members and the basis for calculating the majority of the present members.

However, the respondent did not separately confirm the number of actual representatives in the meeting place at the time of the resolution of this case, and a large number of registered representatives did not properly control the access to the meeting place, which was in the situation where the number of actual representatives at the time of the resolution of this case could not be accurately known prior to the resolution of this case, but the number of remaining representatives at the time of actual voting.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the number of representatives remaining in the meeting place at the time of the resolution of this case is 5,067 persons who actually participated in the voting.

B. Even if it is not so, the meaning of “Appearance” as provided by Article 107(2) of the party constitution should be interpreted as having been present at the actual resolution. Thus, even if a representative is issued with a certificate of representative and did not participate in the voting procedure for the resolution of this case, it cannot be viewed as a representative present at the meeting.

C. Ultimately, the resolution of this case is null and void because it does not meet the requirements for a majority of the incumbent constituent members among the quorum under Article 107(2) of the party constitution, and the representative applicants need to prevent future confusion caused by the resolution of this case. Thus, the provisional disposition stated in the purport of the application is sought.

3. Issues of the instant case

A. The party constitution of the respondent and the party regulations do not have any special provision on the quorum for national representatives meetings. Thus, Article 107(2) of the party constitution of the respondent applies to the resolution of this case.

Meanwhile, the number of persons present who are the basis for determining the quorum refers not to all persons present at the original general meeting, but to those who remain in the meeting place at the time of the resolution at issue, and those who voluntarily left the meeting place during the meeting does not include those who voluntarily left the meeting place (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da56037 Delivered on July 27, 2001).

B. In full view of the aforementioned legal principles and the applicant’s arguments, the key issue of the instant case is first whether the number of representatives actually remaining in the meeting place at the time of the instant resolution should be deemed as several persons, and even if a majority of incumbent representatives at the time of the instant resolution remains in the meeting place, whether only the representatives who actually participated in the voting procedure, excluding representatives who actually participated in the voting procedure, can be deemed as representatives present at the meeting

4. Determination

A. The number of representatives remaining in the meeting place at the time of the resolution of this case

(1) The record reveals that the respondent did not directly check the number of representatives remaining in the meeting place at the time of the instant resolution.

(2) However, the general meeting or the board of directors, etc. of a corporation shall prepare the minutes, and the minutes shall contain the proceedings, guidelines, results, etc., and shall be proved only by the minutes, barring special circumstances, such as whether the minutes were not prepared or lost (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du5568, Apr. 29, 2010), and such legal doctrine shall also apply to the instant case.

According to the meeting minutes of the representative meeting of this case, it is stated that at the time of the opening of the representative meeting of this case, 5,284 members, who already attended the meeting of this case, were the first gender report of 15:00 members and the second gender report of 5,367 members, who increased more than the number of 15:0 members, were present, and no other statement was made that many representatives had already attended the meeting prior to the resolution of this case.

In addition, the respondent's representatives have collected the meeting place across the country for the purpose of actively exercising voting rights by attending the meeting of this case at the request of the respondent, the status of representatives at the request of the National Election Commission employees, and according to the status of the representatives present at the meeting prepared by the National Election Commission employees who issued the registration certificate, on December 11, 2011, stated that the number of representatives present at the meeting of 5,367 on December 16, 201 is increased by 5,820 on the above 15:0,00, and the applicant fails to submit sufficient evidence as to the fact that a large number of registered representatives had already gone out of the meeting place before the resolution of this case, and that there was no evidence that there was no more than 5,820 persons who were remaining in the meeting place at the time of the resolution of this case and who were admitted to the meeting place was confirmed by official records, or that only those representatives who fall short of the majority of the registered representatives are not present at all.

B. Whether only representatives who participated in voting procedures can be seen as representatives present

(1) The fact that the number of persons present at the meeting place, which is the basis for determining the quorum, refers only to the persons remaining in the meeting place at the time of the resolution at issue, is as seen earlier. More strict interpretation is as to whether only the representatives who actually participated in the voting procedure among those who remain in the meeting place at the time of the resolution at issue should be deemed representatives present at the meeting.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in the process of recording and examination, it is reasonable to see that persons remaining in the meeting place at the time of the instant resolution as representatives, regardless of whether they participated in the voting procedure, and solely based on the circumstances asserted by the applicants, it is difficult to readily conclude that only the representatives who actually participated in the voting procedure should be deemed representatives present at the meeting (However, it is difficult to regard those representatives who were present at the meeting place as representatives who were present at the meeting place with intent not to participate in the voting before the commencement of the voting procedure as representatives who were present at the meeting place before the commencement of the voting procedure; however, the applicants do not submit all supporting materials about how much

(A) Article 107(2) of the party constitution of the respondent only provides for “the attendance of a majority of the constituent members” and does not provide for “the attendance of a majority of the constituent members”, and the attendance and voting are clearly distinguishable from the interpretation of the language and text.

(B) In light of the fact that a representative who did not participate in the voting procedure of the instant resolution may not be excluded from the present member, even though he entered the voting procedure after going through a debate on the pros and cons in the meeting place of the instant Congress, but did not participate in the voting procedure by expressing his intention or passive opposition.

(C) In fact, the electronic voting method for the resolution of the instant case can only be an expression of consent and opposition, and there is no separate method for expressing the intent of the right to vote.

(D) It is difficult to readily conclude that the genuine intent of the representatives remaining in the meeting place without participating in the voting procedure at the time of the instant resolution is a conclusive waiver of the exercise of voting rights in the meeting place, and it is inappropriate to treat the same as those who did not attend the meeting place with the representatives participating in the instant meeting place across the country or who left the meeting place during the meeting place.

C. Sub-decision

It is difficult to conclude that the resolution of this case was made because the respondent failed to meet the requirement for attendance of a majority of registered representatives among the quorums under Article 107 (2) of the party constitution, and it is insufficient to recognize it only by the supporting materials submitted by the applicants. Thus, the application of this case is insufficient to vindicate the preserved right.

Furthermore, the autonomy of a political party shall be guaranteed as much as possible, and the important decision-making that depends on the name of a political party, such as the integration or merger of political parties, is basically a matter of autonomous and autonomous decision-making by the political party according to the party constitution and party rules, which are the autonomous norms of a political party. Whether to meet the quorum for the resolution of this case is a part that may vary sufficiently depending on the legal interpretation of the party constitution and the degree of proof as to the situation at the time of the decision-making, and the objective defect or illegality of the decision-making procedure asserted by the applicant as a preserved right is unclear. In addition, the party affairs committee, which is an authoritative interpretation authority of the party constitution and party rules of the respondent, has decided to meet the quorum for the resolution of this case through a meeting. The resolution of this case is 4,427 persons among them, even based on 5,280 representatives present at the meeting, and it is difficult to recognize the necessity to suspend the effect of the resolution of this case as a provisional disposition of this case.

5. Conclusion

All applications filed by applicants are dismissed for lack of justifiable grounds.

[Attachment] Agenda: omitted

Judges Sung Dok (Presiding Judge)