[2] The legal nature of a report on examination of documents on the application for registration of a candidate for an election for public office (=the internal administrative guidelines for administrative affairs)

[3] In a case where there is a ground under Article 20-2(1) of the Rules on the Management of Election for Public Office, whether the Election Commission should send or reissue the corrected information disclosure data of a candidate after correcting the submission of the information disclosure data, etc. of a candidate and the information disclosure data of a candidate prepared on the basis thereof, and the standard for determining whether the sending or re-delivery of the information disclosure data

[4] Whether the part of Article 20-2 (6) of the Rules on the Management of Election of Public Officials, which prevents an absentee polling station from attaching a copy of the correction of the open data on candidates to an absentee polling station in an election excluding the presidential election, is unconstitutional and illegal (negative)

[5] The case where an election commission impliedly approves or neglects an illegal act in the election process by a third party, including a candidate, without taking proper corrective measures, and constitutes "a violation of the provisions concerning election which are the grounds for invalidation of election" in the election lawsuit

[6] The scope of unlawful acts committed by a third party, including candidates who are eligible for the invalidation of an election in a election lawsuit, in the course of an election by a third party

[7] The case holding that in an election of National Assembly members, failure to pay taxes on the elected person was not affected by the election result

[2] The document review report on application for registration of a candidate is merely an internal rule on administrative affairs of the National Election Commission (amended by March 12, 2004, the National Election Commission's established rules No. 26) in light of the form and content thereof, and it cannot be deemed that it does not constitute a provision on election under the Public Official Election and Prevention of Election Malpractice Act, which is effective to detain the people or the court. Therefore, even if the employees of the constituency election commission did not properly examine whether the contents of the statement on the disclosure of information about the candidate were identical with the evidentiary documents, and did not clarify the omission of the elected's failure to pay taxes, or did not enter the appropriateness thereof in the above review report, and thus violated the review of the above review report, it does not immediately constitute a violation of the provisions on

[3] The election commission shall, if possible, interpret that the disclosure data of a candidate should be corrected to send or re-issued the corrected candidate's information disclosure data, etc. prepared based on the written submission of the candidate's information disclosure data and the candidate's information disclosure data should be corrected to the extent possible, and in contrast, the public announcement system under Article 20-2 (6) of the Rules on the Election of Public Officials is a separate system that is recognized as a supplement to the disclosure by sending the candidate information disclosure data. Thus, it cannot be said that it has no effect since it violates Article 20-2 (6) of the Rules on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election of Public Officials and Article 49 (14) of the Rules on the Election of Public Officials, and the legislative purport of the public announcement system under Article 20-2 (6) of the Rules on the Management of Public Officials and the public announcement system under Article 20-2 (6) of the Rules on the Election of Public Officials.

[4] In light of the legislative intent of the information disclosure system for guaranteeing the right to know of the people and the right to vote of the people, and the fact that there are many cases where the result of an election is affected by the result of an absentee voting, it is necessary to take appropriate legislative measures to inform the electors listed on the reported electoral register of obvious errors in the disclosed data in the future promptly and accurately. However, Article 20-2 (6) of the Rules on the Management of Public Officials Election excluding the presidential election excluding the presidential election in Article 20-2 (6) of the Rules on the Management of Public Officials Election and the Prevention of Election Act excluding the presidential election putting a copy of a correction of the disclosed data on the candidate's open data at an absentee polling station, Article 49 (12) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election,

[5] The "fact that there is a violation of the provisions concerning election" which is the ground for invalidation in the election lawsuit includes a case where there is a defect in the management and execution of election affairs that may be responsible for the illegal act in the election process by a third party such as a candidate, etc., without taking proper corrective measures. However, in this context, the "election commission's implied approval or neglect without taking proper measures" means a case where the election commission does not take proper measures despite being aware of the illegal act in the election process by a third party such as a candidate, etc., but it does not include any case where the election commission failed to know that it was possible to know that it was about the illegal act in the election process of a candidate, etc.

[6] The "fact that there is a violation of the provisions concerning election" which is a ground for invalidation in the election lawsuit includes cases where it is recognized that the freedom and fairness of the election, which is the basic ideology of the election, is substantially impeded because electors are unable to vote by free judgment due to an illegal act committed by a third party, such as a candidate, etc. In this context, an illegal act committed by a third party, such as a candidate, means only an intentional act committed by a third party, such as a candidate, unless there are special circumstances.

[7] The case holding that even though the information disclosure data on a candidate was omitted, the failure of the elected person to pay taxes was widely known to the elector through the publication of the political portal site of the National Election Commission and the publication of press reports and the information disclosure data on candidates, and the omission does not seem to have a special obstacle to the elector's right to know and exercising his right to vote on the candidate's information, and if the number of votes obtained in the absentee voting with the elected person is viewed as the difference between the number of votes obtained in the entire voting and the number of votes obtained in the entire voting, the omission of the elected person's failure to pay taxes from the

The 42,415 votes, 2,155 votes, 2,717 votes, 2,416 votes, and 2,416 votes, respectively, that are decided as the elected person by the largest obtaining person, the participant who was the largest obtaining person, recommended by the plaintiff in the 17th Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City election for the National Assembly member (hereinafter referred to as the “instant election”), in the 17th election for the National Assembly member of the Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which was implemented on April 15, 2004.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the election of this case is null and void, since the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant preference") violated the regulations on the election as follows, and thereby affected the result of the election.

(a) Giving false information due to the omission of fact in arrears;

For the purpose of election, the intervenor intentionally omitted the fact of delinquency in his income tax and submitted a written submission of information disclosure data, etc. to the candidate's public official, who is unaware of this fact, and published the false information by allowing the defendant's public official to prepare the information disclosure data on the candidate for which the intervenor

(b) A violation of the duty to confirm or correct the contents stated in the written submission of open data on candidates;

According to Paragraph 12 of Article 12 of the Examination Protocol of Documents on Application for Registration of Candidates, although it is required to examine whether the information disclosure data on candidates coincide with each other, and enter the appropriateness thereof in the above Examination Protocol. However, on April 1, 2004, literature-Nam et al., an employee of the Defendant Prior to the Defendant Prior to the Election of the Intervenor, submitted a written submission of information disclosure data on candidates, etc. which was finally revised by Kim Jin, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Party Prior to the Election of the Intervenor, submitted on April 1, 2004, and failed to properly examine the contents thereof, and failed to clarify the omission of the

(c) Refusing to send or reissue data on candidate's information disclosure;

The defendant's first instance court, upon finding out of April 4, 2004 or April 6 of the same year that the intervenor was omitted from the candidate's information disclosure data, did not send or re-post the candidate's information disclosure data after correcting the candidate's information disclosure data, and even if the defendant's first instance court knew on April 11, 2004 that the defendant's failure to pay was omitted from the candidate's information disclosure data, the defendant's second instance court could correct the candidate's information disclosure data and re-post the candidate's information disclosure data, but did not take such measures.

(d) An absentee voting conducted without making a corrected public announcement at the entrance of an absentee polling place;

In the election of a National Assembly member under Article 20-2 (6) of the Rules on the Management of Election of Public Officials, even if there is an error in the open data on candidates already dispatched to the electors, the part where the correction of the open data on candidates’ information should not be posted at the entrance of the absentee polling station is null and void in violation of Article 49 (12) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice (hereinafter referred to as the “Election Act”), Article 49 (12) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (hereinafter referred to as the “Election Act”), the principle of free and fair election as provided by the Constitution, and the Election Commission Act, which provides for the fundamental obligations of the election commission, and it is also null and void since the instant absentee voting conducted without attaching a notice to the effect that the Intervenor

(e) Collective activity, etc.;

On April 14, 2004, an intervenor made up of 6 election campaigners, and made 13 Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City play a collective election campaign by making 13 dong-gu, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City go around music, and made it conduct an illegal election campaign by posting one election campaign worker in the vicinity of the Sejong-gu, while holding one election campaigner and allowing him to conduct an election campaign by putting one election campaign worker around the Sejong-gu.

(f) Giving false information by sending text messages;

An intervenor published a false text message by sending illegal election campaign, even though he/she did not engage in an illegal election campaign with the intention of preventing a candidate from being elected.

(g) An election campaign on the election day;

On January 15, 2004, an intervenor took illegal election campaign by sending illegal text messages to the elector on the election day at around 09:57.

(h) Sending text messages by telephone equipped with an automatic transmission system;

On April 14, 2004, an intervenor carried out an illegal election campaign by sending illegal text messages by telephone using a computer.

(i) Imploiting or neglecting Defendant’s prestige with respect to the omission of a fact in arrears;

The failure of the Intervenor to clarify the omission of the Intervenor’s delinquency in receiving the application for candidate registration from the Intervenor constitutes an illegal act in the election process by a third party, such as a candidate, without taking an appropriate corrective measure, where there is another reason attributable to the responsibility, such as implied and neglecting, etc., in relation to the illegal act in the election process by the third party, including the candidate.

(j) Interference with the freedom and fairness of the election due to the omission of facts in arrears;

The election freedom and fairness, which is the basic ideology of the election, has been substantially impeded due to the illegal act of the Kim Jin-jin omitted the fact that the intervenor was delinquent by negligence.

3. Determination

A. The election lawsuit stipulated in Articles 22 and 224 of the Election Act refers to a lawsuit on the election, which is a collective act, in violation of the provisions relating to the election in the series of elections, and where it is recognized that the result of the election has influenced the result of the election, the whole or part of the election refers to a lawsuit on the invalidation of the election. The term "the fact that there is a violation of the provisions on the election, which is the ground of invalidation of election" in this lawsuit, means the case where the election commission, the subject of the election management, basically violates the provisions on the management and execution of election affairs, and where there is a separate defect in the management and execution of election affairs that may be responsible for such an act without taking proper corrective measures against the illegal act committed by a third party, such as a candidate, but it includes the case where it is recognized that the freedom of election, which is the basic ideology of the election, cannot be cast freely at the free decision of the electors, and it refers to the case where it is recognized that the result of the election had influenced the result of the election" means 30.

B. Based on these legal principles, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a violation of the provision regarding the election under the Election Act.

(1) As to the publishing of false facts by omitting the fact of arrears

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the intervenor may recognize the fact that the intervenor did not enter the fact that he did not pay a total of KRW 1,157,000 in income tax for the last five years (hereinafter referred to as "fact that he did not pay in arrears") in the written submission of information disclosure data, etc. on the candidate's candidate registration to the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City constituency for the National Assembly member on April 1, 2004, and there is no counter-proof; however, there is no counter-proof, it is insufficient to recognize that the intervenor intentionally omitted the fact that the intervenor did not pay in arrears only with the descriptions of evidence No. 22-5, 6, A 23, and 24, and each testimony of kimchi and Kim Jong-dae, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the omission by the intervenor's failure to pay taxes can not constitute an act of publishing false facts.

(2) As to the violation of the duty to correct the contents stated in the statement of information disclosure of the candidate

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, Gap evidence Nos. 22-7, 8, 11, 12, 15 through 19, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3-4, Eul evidence Nos. 17 and 19-17, and Eul evidence Nos. 17 and 19-19, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the examination of the documents for application for candidate registration is examined according to paragraph (12) of the contents of the examination of the information disclosure statement of the candidate, etc., and whether the documents are appropriate after examining whether the contents of the information disclosure statement of the candidate are consistent with each of the evidentiary documents, etc., the employees of the defendant prior to the defendant prior to the defendant prior to the date of submission of the information disclosure statement, etc., which was finally modified from Kim Jin-jin, the deputy Director General of the election, and whether the intervenor's application for submission of the information disclosure statement, etc. was incomplete or non-payment evidence.

The above review protocol was established by the National Election Commission to deal with the affairs of the National Election Commission (amended on March 12, 2004, No. 26 of the Rules on the Election of Public Officials, etc.) and does not constitute a provision on election under the Election Act, which is effective to protect the people or the court, because it is merely a rule on internal administration of the defendant's front line in light of its form and contents. Thus, the defendant's first executive officer's failure to properly examine whether it is consistent with the contents of the information disclosure statement on candidates, etc. submitted by his employees, and did not clarify the omission of the intervenor's failure to pay taxes, or did not enter the appropriateness thereof in the above review protocol in the above review protocol. Thus, even if the defendant first executive officer violated paragraph (12) of the above review report, it does not immediately

In addition, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant's prior officer did not know of the omission of the intervenor's delinquency in the submission of the information disclosure data, etc. on the candidate's candidate's candidate, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's prior officer violated the

(3) As to the refusal of sending or re-delivery of the candidate's information disclosure data

The purpose of Article 49(12) of the Election Act is to guarantee the right to know and the right to vote of the people by disclosing information about the candidate's occupation, academic background, and career as well as property status, military service records, income tax, property tax and aggregate land tax payment and delinquent performance, criminal records, etc. for the last five years to the electors based on the duty of fair competition of political parties and candidates participating in the election. In full view of the language and purport of Article 49(13) of the Election Act concerning the dispatch of the disclosed data on candidate's information, Article 49(14) of the Election Act concerning the ex officio correction of the disclosed data on candidate's disclosure of information, etc., Article 20-2(1) through (6) of the Election Act concerning the dispatch of the disclosed data on candidate's information, etc., and Article 20-2(1) through (4) of the Rules on the Management of Public Official Election cannot be interpreted as a correction or re-issuance of the disclosed data on candidate's information disclosure of candidate's information as far as possible.

Meanwhile, in full view of the legislative purport of the open information disclosure system of a candidate, the corrective system of the open information disclosure data of a candidate, and the public announcement system of Article 20-2(6) of the Rules on the Election of Public Officials, whether the delivery or re-delivery of the open information disclosure data of a candidate or whether it is legitimate or not should be determined depending on whether there is a physical or time limit to the extent that it can send or re-

The evidence No. 11-5, Gap evidence No. 12, 13, 14, Gap evidence No. 18-1, 2, 19-1, 20-1, 21, Gap evidence No. 221, Gap evidence No. 22-4, 5, 6, 13, 23, 24, Gap evidence No. 26-1, 26-2, Gap evidence No. 27, and the whole purport of arguments in the testimony of Kim Jong-hun, Kim Jong-hun, and Kim Jong-hun, the defendant's first executive officer is not likely to suffer disadvantage in the election due to omission from the information disclosure data of the candidate from the side of the intervenor around April 19, 200, Gap evidence No. 21, Gap evidence No. 21, and Gap evidence No. 221, Gap evidence No. 221, Gap evidence No. 2262-1, 4, and 4, it is difficult to find out the information disclosure of the candidate's evidence No.4.

In full view of the contents and schedule of the election management business as seen earlier and the personal resources and physical facilities of Defendant Line, it seems difficult for Defendant Line to re-printed the information disclosure data on candidates, which added the Intervenor’s delinquency to send to the voters listed on the absentee registry by April 6, 2004. Meanwhile, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant Line did not have time to send to voters listed on the absentee registry. However, in light of the aforementioned various circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant Line could have refused to print and send the information disclosure data on candidates, which added the Intervenor’s delinquency to the election day without fail, even though it was possible to conclude that Defendant Line refused to do so.

Therefore, it is difficult to say that the defendant's prior election's refusal to send or reissue the disclosed data on the candidate's information constitutes a violation of the provisions on the election.

(4) As to the act of voting conducted without a corrective notice at the entrance of an absentee polling station

Article 49 (12) of the Election Act provides that "the competent constituency election commission shall not make public the documents submitted or presented to the elector in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (4) 2 through 6 and (10) of this Article: Provided, That such documents shall not be made public after the election day: Provided, That it shall not be made public," and Article 49 (15) of the same Act provides that "the form and method of a candidate's application for registration and recommendation, the method of disclosure, the submission, delivery and form of disclosing data on a candidate, the forms and amount of explanatory materials, and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Regulations of the National Election Commission," and Article 20-2 (6) of the Rules on the Management of Election of Public Officials according to delegation shall provide that "where the Gu/Si/Gun committee deems that there is an obvious error in the disclosed data on the candidate's information dispatched, it shall publicly announce such fact, and one copy shall be posted at the entrance of the polling station (limited to the presidential election) during the election period, and on the election day, at the entry of the polling station."

The legislative purport of Article 20-2(6) of the above Rule is that in the case of absentee voting, the period between the absentee ballot paper and the date of absentee voting is only 2.3 days after sending the absentee ballot paper in the case of absentee voting according to the provisions of Articles 148(1) and 154(1) of the Election Act. In the case of an election of a National Assembly member with a large number of candidates due to the human and physical conditions of the election commission, it is difficult to give public notice of all errors discovered from the candidate information disclosure data to all absentee polling stations across the country. Article 49(12) of the Election Act, Article 20(6) of the Rules on the Management of Election of Public Officials provides for separate notice on the candidate information disclosure data on the Internet homepage of the election commission so that electors can easily access the candidate information disclosure data, and Article 82-2 of the Election Act provides for the Gu/Si/Gun Election Commission to hold a fair interview, debate, or joint election campaign speech meeting to ensure that the candidate's right to information disclosure of candidate information is invalid and invalid.

(5) As to the group ratio, etc.

According to the evidence No. 22-1, No. 4, and No. 19-1 of the evidence No. 22-1 of the Intervenor’s 6 election campaigners, it can be acknowledged that the Intervenor made a collective election campaign in line with music in the world by making a speech by making up 13 dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City election districts on April 14, 2004. However, the above act alone does not constitute an illegal election campaign under Article 105(1) of the Election Act. Rather, the above act was conducted to indicate support for the relevant political party or candidate at the speech at an open place, and it does not constitute an illegal election campaign as it falls under the proviso of Article 105(1)3 of the Election Act.

In addition, according to the evidence No. 22-1 and No. 4 of the above, although the unsatisfy may be acknowledged the facts of the demonstration by taking the satisfet, the unsatisfy may be held in the vicinity of the satisfy, there is no evidence to prove that the intervenor had caused the unsatisfyer to conduct the above demonstration, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant'

(6) As to the publication of false facts by sending text messages

갑 제8호증의 1 내지 10의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 참가인의 보좌관인 소외 1의 지시를 받은 소외 2 등이 2004. 4. 14. 14:00 "발신번호(From) (전화번호 생략), 기호 3번/안영근선거정보 *수신거부시 삭제 ★전두환 사위가 불법선거까지 막아주세요."라는 문자메세지를 선거권자인 소외 3의 휴대전화기에 발송한 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 참가인이 소외 1에게 이를 지시한 사실을 인정할 증거가 없고, 피고 선관위가 이를 알고 묵인ㆍ방치하였음을 인정할 증거도 없다.

(7) As to the election campaign on the day of election

On January 15, 2004, at around 09:57, Nonparty 4, an election day, Nonparty 5’s cell phone, Nonparty 5, an elector, “Clelelights, brightnesss at each time a candlelight is divided. The fact that Nonparty 4 sent text messages to Nonparty 5, an elector, is not disputed between the parties, but there is no evidence to prove that the Intervenor had Nonparty 4 transmit text messages to Nonparty 4, or that the Defendant’s frontline knew of it.

(8) As to the sending of text messages by means of automatic transmission devices and telephones

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings No. 8-1 through 10, Nonparty 2, etc., upon Nonparty 1’s instructions, sent text messages to the same effect as seen above 14 times until April 14 of the same year, including: (a) Nonparty 2, etc., on April 11, 2004, by means of a phone phone number (number omitted); and (b) Nonparty 3/permanent election information * at the time of refusing to receive it; (c) Nonparty 3’s refusal to delete when the receipt was made; (d) Nonparty 3’s mobile phone period, the elector; (e) sending text messages to the elector’s mobile phone period, on April 14 of the same year; (e) however, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant Line, knowing that such text messages were made by a phone installed with an automatic transmission system using a computer.

(9) The defendant's implied and neglect of his or her failure to pay taxes

In the election lawsuit, "the fact that there is a violation of the provisions concerning the election", which is the ground for invalidation, includes a case where there is a defect in the management and execution of the election affairs that may be responsible for such an act by a third party such as a candidate, without taking proper corrective measures against the illegal act in the election process by a third party such as a candidate. However, in this context, the term "the election commission's implied approval or neglect without taking proper measures" means a case where the election commission did not take proper measures despite being aware of the illegal act in the election process by a third party such as a candidate, but it does not include any case where the election commission failed to know that it could have been known that it had

Since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's prior election officer knew that the intervenor was omitted from the list of information disclosure data, etc. submitted by the intervenor at the time of receiving the application for candidate registration from the intervenor, the defendant's prior election officer did not clarify the omission of the intervenor's default, it cannot be deemed that there is a separate reason attributable to the responsibility, such as implied approval or neglect of the defendant's prior election without taking proper corrective measures against the illegal act in the election process by a third party, such as the candidate.

(10) undermining the freedom and fairness of the election due to the omission of the fact of arrears.

In the election lawsuit, "the fact that there is a violation of the provisions concerning the election", which is the reason for invalidation, includes the case where the elector is unable to vote by free judgment due to an illegal act committed by a third party such as a candidate, and thereby the freedom and fairness of the election, which is the basic ideology of the election, is considerably impeded. In this context, an illegal act committed by a third party such as a candidate, etc. means only an intentional illegal act committed by a third party such as a candidate, unless there are special circumstances.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the freedom and fairness of election, which is the basic ideology of election, has been substantially impeded due to the illegal act of omission of the intervenor's delinquency by negligence, is groundless. Unlike the plaintiff's assertion, there is no evidence to support that the freedom and fairness of election, which is the basic ideology of election, are substantially impeded because the elector cannot vote by free judgment due to the illegal act committed by a third party, such as a candidate, etc.

C. Furthermore, we examine whether the defendant's prior election rejected a request from the intervenor to send the information disclosure data on candidates, which corrected the omission of the intervenor's delinquency from the information disclosure data on candidates, to the elector, and then sent the information disclosure data on candidates whose failure to pay was omitted to the elector, thereby affecting the result of the election.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 13, and 14, Gap evidence Nos. 18-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 22-13, Eul evidence No. 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 7 and the whole purport of the oral argument in the testimony of the witness and Yong-Nam, the defendant Prior to the defendant's prior to the defendant's prior to the defendant's failure to pay the income tax, property tax, and aggregate land tax stated in the facts in arrears of the intervenor pursuant to Article 49 (12) of the Election Act, and Article 20 (6) of the Rules on the Management of Public Officials' Office, the defendant prior to the date of the election, from around 16:40 to April 15, 2004, the National Election Commission's political portal site (http:/el.c.go. 9) of the defendant's failure to submit the information disclosure report, etc., the defendant's failure to send the information disclosure data to the candidate's prior to the defendant's 2.

In full view of the above-mentioned facts and evidence Nos. 12, 20 through 23 in the 17th election of the National Assembly members, the factors for selecting candidates and voting behavior of the voters, the distribution of the electors by age, occupation and age of the absentee voters, the distribution of the number of votes and their distribution by candidates in the absentee voting of this case, etc., even though the facts in arrears were omitted from the information disclosure data on candidates, in this case where the intervenor's failure to pay was widely known to the electors through the publication of the political portal site of the National Election Commission, media reports, and the publication of the information disclosure data on candidates, etc., it is not deemed that there was a special obstacle to the elector's right to know and exercise of voting right to the candidate's information. However, in view of the difference between the number of votes obtained in the absentee voting of the intervenor and leap upperly, it cannot be said that the omission of the facts in arrears of the intervenor from the information disclosure data on candidates reaches 424.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it appears to be any mother or there is no ground, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)