[2] The purport of requiring entry of the grounds for requesting on the list of petitioners for recall voting under Article 9 (1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, and the validity of signatures on the list of petitioners for recall voting without stating the grounds for requesting (negative)

[3] In a case where an election commission accepted a request for recall voting that failed to meet the requirements of Article 7(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, whether the above acceptance disposition is unlawful (affirmative), and whether the negligence of the election commission affects the illegality of the above acceptance disposition (negative)

[4] The degree of illegality of the above acceptance disposition in a case where the Election Commission accepted the request for recall voting without meeting the requirements of Article 7 (1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act (= grounds for cancellation)

[2] The purport of Article 9(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act that requires a person who has the right to request a recall election to enter his/her signature in the petition book is not merely for the purpose of enabling the person who has the right to request a recall election to enter his/her signature in the petition book, but for the purpose of forming one expression of intent as to the request for recall elections by combining the grounds for the request and signatures on the petition book. Thus, a signature on the petition book that does not contain the grounds for the request shall be null and void pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act and Article 12(2)7 of the Residents' Voting Act, unless the grounds for the request for recall voting are stated in the petition book, unless the grounds for the request for recall voting are stated in the petition book that violates Article 9(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act and Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Recall of Elected Officials Act that does not constitute a violation of Article 7(2) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act that does not directly state the grounds for the request for recall voting Act and its signature are null and void.

[3] According to Article 11 of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, the competent election commission shall dismiss a request for recall voting in which the total number of valid signatures does not meet the requirements of Article 7(1) of the same Act. Thus, if a request for recall voting was rejected without dismissal, it would be deemed unlawful. In this case, the illegality of acceptance disposition does not affect the illegality of acceptance disposition.

[4] Although the defect of acceptance disposition by the competent election commission which accepted the request for recall voting that failed to meet the requirements of Article 7 (1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act is serious, it is not easy for the above election commission to find out whether the person with the right to request recall voting has obtained the signature with the sign or the sign with the sign or the sign with the reasons for the request when he/she conducts the request for recall voting, but it is not clear that the signature on the book without the reasons for the request is invalid despite other document or oral explanation. In light of the fact that there is no room for doubt as to who is invalid, it cannot be said that the defect of the receipt disposition of the request for recall voting by the above election commission is obvious. Thus, the above disposition cannot be deemed as invalid as a matter of course, and it constitutes a disposition that can be revoked.

2. The defendant's disposition of acceptance of each request for recall voting against the plaintiffs on August 9, 2007 shall be revoked.

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

Although each disposition specified in paragraph (2) of this Article (the correction of the purport of the request for a recall voting as of September 5, 2007) is divided into "acceptance of a recall voting request", "Publication of the summary of the request for a recall voting", and "Notification to the plaintiffs" as to the subject of nullification or cancellation, as seen later, the summary of the request for a recall voting and the notification to the plaintiffs are merely an external formation procedure constituting the acceptance disposition for a recall voting request. As such, the plaintiffs are deemed to have separately expressed a single disposition called the acceptance disposition for each request for a recall voting as of September 5, 207, each of the plaintiffs' respective dispositions are deemed to have been stated separately by stages.

Preliminary,

It is so decided as per Disposition 2.

A. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor, Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 3’s Vice-Speaker, and Plaintiff 4 are the members of the Southern City Council, respectively.

B. Nonparty 1 was designated as the representative of the applicant for recall voting from the Defendant pursuant to the Recall of Elected Officials Act (hereinafter “ Recall of Elected Officials Act”) and received the certificate of representative of the applicant for recall voting and the list of the applicants for recall voting (including the marks and colors different for each of the plaintiffs, who are the candidates for recall voting, and the quantity of the sign was less than the quantity or the quantity of the sign). On July 23, 2007, Nonparty 1 delegated the applicant for recall voting with the right to request signatures from 32,885 residents (the number of persons who signed on the above list) who were left in the above list and had the applicant for recall voting sign from 32,885 residents (the number of persons who signed on the above list). On July 23, 2007, Nonparty 1 submitted the list of applicants for recall voting (hereinafter “instant signature list”) to the Defendant, and requested recall voting against the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each of the above requests for recall voting”).

- With regard to the issue of attracting metropolitan crematoriums, the administration that regulates citizens as follows: “Influences, strokes, and strokes of markets shown in the process of attracting them,” “strokes and lack of knowledge and qualities as representatives of subordinate citizens,” and the power given by citizens to “influence citizens into the room” is insufficient and abused in filing complaints, accusations, etc.” and actively supporting them;

C. In accordance with each of the instant requests for recall voting, the Defendant accepted each of the instant requests for recall voting on August 9, 2007, and notified each of the instant requests for recall voting on the 10th of the following month to Plaintiffs 2, 4, and Plaintiff 1 and 3 of the summary of the request for recall voting (the publication of the summary of the request for recall voting as above and the notification to Plaintiffs 1 and 3 on the subject of recall voting are merely an external formation procedure that constitutes the acceptance disposition of each request for recall voting, and each of the Plaintiffs is deemed to be the acceptance disposition of each request for recall voting by adding the series of procedures that constitute the acceptance disposition of the request for recall voting. hereinafter each of the instant dispositions for recall voting was referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

D. The signature of this case used by the delegated party at the time of receiving the signature for the request for recall voting from the residents of the Hanam-si and the sign consisting of a separate sign. The sign contains a column for requesting recall voting for the purpose of stating the grounds for the request for recall voting (hereinafter referred to as “grounds for requesting recall voting”) and the column for requesting recall voting (which means that the book and name are stated) and the column for the person subject to recall voting for recall voting (which means that each name of the claimant for recall voting and the delegated party are stated and the signature or seal is stated) are written, and there is a letter for the defendant to affix the seal of approval.

마. 수임자들은 하남시 주민들에 대하여 주민소환투표청구에 관한 서명요청 활동을 할 당시, 대부분의 경우 접이식 파일 내부의 오른쪽에는 이 사건 서명부의 내지를 편철하고, 왼쪽에는 피고로부터 교부받은 소환청구인대표자 서명요청권 위임신고증 또는 그 사본을 전면에 편철한 상태로 서명자들에게 제시하였는데{갑21호증의 11, 12(방송보도 화면)의 각 영상에 의하면, 일부에서는 위임신고증 대신 그 자리에 ‘광역화장장 유치 반대!! 주민소환 찬성!!’이라고 표시된 유인물이 첨부되어 있던 사례도 확인할 수 있음}, 이 사건 서명부의 표지는 극히 일부의 수임자들이 간략히 청구사유를 기재하였던 것 외에는 청구사유란에 아무런 기재를 하지 아니한 채 대체로 위 위임신고증의 아래쪽 등에 함께 편철하여 두었고, 이 사건 서명부 내지에는 별도로 청구사유를 기재한 바 없었다(수임자들이었던 증인 소외 2, 3, 4는 각 서명요청 당시 이 사건 서명부의 표지에 청구사유를 기재하여야 하는 점을 잘 알고 있었는데, 위임신고증에 청구사유가 기재되어 있으므로 서명부 표지에 청구사유를 따로 기재하지 않았거나 축약하여 기재하였다고 진술하였다). 그런데 위 위임신고증은 피고로부터 발급받은 것으로서 그 청구의 취지 및 이유란에 이 사건 각 주민소환투표청구 당시의 청구의 취지 및 이유가 기재되어 있었다. 그리고 수임자들의 위와 같은 서명요청 활동 과정에서는 서명자들에게 구두로 주민소환투표청구의 사유를 설명하거나 위임신고증의 해당 청구사유 부분을 적시하면서 그 내용을 고지한 사례도 있다.

F. The above non-party 1, etc. requested the defendant prior to filing each request for recall voting of this case after the completion of the signature, and received a new sign of the sign of the signature of this case (which became a white paper different from the mark originally issued for each plaintiff color different) and submitted it to the defendant at the time of filing each request for recall voting of this case.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap 21 to 23 evidence, Eul 1 to 10, 12 to 17 evidence (including each number), the witness non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6' testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

In order to dispute the defect in the procedure for recall voting, the defendant must follow the method of a lawsuit for recall voting under Article 24 of the Recall of Elected Officials Act that contests the validity of voting, which is a collective act from the issuance of a certificate of representative of the candidate for recall voting by the competent election commission to the decision on the result of voting. Since it cannot dispute the administrative disposition on the management and execution of voting in each of the dispositions of this case that cannot be subject to administrative litigation, the plaintiffs' objection against each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

However, in light of the former part of the Act on the Recall of Elected Officials and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents provide that the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents provide that the Act on the Election of Residents and the Act on the Election of Residents provide that the Act on the last one year.

3. Determination as to the validity of the disposition

A. The allegations and issues of the parties

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

According to Article 9(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, when the representative of the summons requester or the person entrusted with the right to request signatures from the residents for the request for recall voting, he shall use the signature book stating the reasons for the request, and according to Article 11(2)6 and attached Form 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the sign of the petition for recall voting shall be stated in the sign of the petition for recall voting. The delegated person shall use only the signature of the case and obtain the signature from the residents, and the signature or the ground for the request is not stated in the signature of the case. Thus, the signature received from the residents is null and void as a signature in violation of the methods and procedures prescribed by the Recall of Elected Officials Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Accordingly, each of the requests for recall voting of this case shall be dismissed because the total number of valid signatures received from the residents fails to meet the requirements of Article 7(1)2 through 3 of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, and the defendant's disposition accepting each of the claims for recall voting of this case shall be unlawful, and shall be null and void even if its defect is significant and void.

On the other hand, even if the delegated person, at the time of receiving the signature from the residents, presented or perused the delegation report certificate along with the signature of this case, and the delegation report certificate and the signature book of this case differing from the purpose of the delegation report certificate, so the delegation report certificate and the signature book of this case cannot be substituted by the claim reasons stated in the delegation report certificate.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) Article 9(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act merely provides for the method of requesting signatures by the representatives of summons petitioners or those delegated with the authority to request signatures, and thus, it cannot be deemed null and void merely because they received the signatures of residents on the book that does not state the grounds for the claim. This is supported by the fact that the above provision does not exist in relation to the receipt of the signatures on the book that is not sealed in Article 10(3) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, while prohibiting the signature from being affixed on the book that is not sealed in Article 10(3) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, although Article 32(1) of the same Act provides that the person who has obtained the signatures on the book that is not sealed in Article 32(1) of the same Act, shall

In addition, Article 10(4) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act provides that a person may engage in the activities of requesting signatures by presenting a list of the candidates for recall or explaining the purpose or reasons for recall voting or by verbally explaining the purpose or reasons for recall voting, and this is not an example, but an example. At the time when a person receives signature from residents, the person in charge of the activities of requesting signatures provided the purpose or reasons for recall voting with the signature or the signature of the case, and presented a certificate of delegation report along with the signature of the case, and the certificate of delegation report stated the reasons for request, so the purpose of Article 9(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, which is to allow the residents to write their signatures with the awareness of the reasons for request, is realized

Therefore, the signatures of the residents on the instant book are valid, and since the total number of effective signatures meets the requirements of Article 7(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, each disposition of the Defendant is lawful.

(B) Even if the signature received in the book without the reasons for the claim is null and void, the defendant delivered to Nonparty 1, etc. a form in which the reasons for the claim were stated at the time of issuing the list of petitioners for recall voting, and the signature book of this case was bound with the sign or the sign attached thereto when Nonparty 1, etc. received the signature book of this case from Nonparty 1, etc., and the sign was written with the reasons for the claim. Thus, it is just to determine that the signature book of this case is formally effective. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the defendant has a duty to examine whether he used the sign or the sign of this case as well as the sign of this case, which stated the reasons for the claim in the course of engaging in the act of requesting signatures in fact. Such review is physically impossible, and thus the defendant's each disposition of this case is lawful

(3) Issues

Therefore, the issues of this case are as follows.

First, whether the signature received by using only the signature or signature of this case, which does not state the reasons for the claim, is valid.

Second, if such signature is null and void, whether the defendant's each disposition of this case is unlawful.

Third, if the defendant's each disposition of this case is illegal, the degree of illegality is up to the invalidity of the disposition as a matter of course.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) The validity of the signature received on the book without the reasons for the claim

Article 9(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act provides that "the representative, etc. of the petitioners for recall voting may request the persons entitled to request recall voting to sign the petition list using the list of petitioners for recall voting issued by the competent election commission with the seal of approval." Thus, it shall be deemed that the reasons for requesting recall voting should be stated in the list of petitioners for recall voting, which is essential requirements prepared to ensure the delivery of the reasons for requesting recall voting, which constitute the essential part of the request for recall voting, and which should be processed uniformly and clearly, by nature of the voting procedure, in which signatures are made.

In other words, the recall election system is a system for expanding the direct participation of residents in local autonomy and improving the democracy and accountability of local administration. In order to prevent the remaining issue of the request for recall voting, Article 7 of the Recall of Elected Officials Act allows only a certain number of residents to request recall voting by their signatures. The signature of a certain number which is the requisite for requesting recall voting refers to the signature of residents supporting the request for recall voting. In principle, in order to confirm the residents' intention, it is possible to collect a certain number of residents' request for recall voting by combining the request for recall voting. However, this procedure is too complicated and it can be substantially obstructed the way of requesting recall voting. Therefore, the current Recall of Elected Officials Act is understood that signing on the petition book for recall voting indirectly, so it is possible to substitute for the request for recall voting. Therefore, although the list of petitioners for recall voting is formally one (or several) but it is not specified in the list of petitioners for recall voting, it is not specified in the list of petitioners for recall voting, the remaining reasons for recall voting is not specified in the list of applicants for recall voting.

In addition, in a case where the reasons for a request for a recall election on which signatures have been made are not stated in a real problem, if the reasons for a request regarding the delivery of the reasons for a request for a recall election are permitted other than the cases where the reasons for a request for signature is clearly stated in the above book at the time of the request for signature, it is very difficult to confirm whether the reasons for the request are delivered in the process of voting affairs and it is also difficult to secure the accuracy of the delivery thereof (the plaintiffs in this case asserted that many delegated parties have explained to the Signatory as they have been signed to oppose the attraction of crematorium unlike the reasons for the request). Therefore, in the Recall of Elected Officials Act, it shall be deemed that they have been signed directly in order to eliminate such uncertainty and have the reasons for the request entered in the register (in particular, in the voting procedure emphasizing the clarity of the procedure, the interpretation

In addition, Articles 10(3) and 32(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act prohibit signature only on a book that has not been sealed in the recall voting, and even if criminal punishment is imposed in the case of violation, this provision merely provides for the prohibition of serious violation grounds, and does not recognize that the signature on the book that has been made on the register is valid without the grounds for request. In addition, even if Article 10(4) of the same Act provides that a signature may be carried out by presenting the list of petitioners for summons or verbally explaining the purpose or reasons for recall voting in the manner of presenting the list of petitioners for recall voting or explaining the purpose or reason for recall voting, it is a provision that limited recognition of the activities of request for recall, and it merely focuses on allowing the representative of the summons to present the list of petitioners for recall voting, and it cannot be viewed that permission to not enter the grounds for recall voting in the list or permission to substitute means other than the method of requesting the same.

Therefore, the purport of Article 9(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, which requires a person who has made a signature to enter the grounds for a request on the petition book of resident recall voting, does not merely aim at allowing the person who has made a signature to recognize the grounds for a request and sign his/her signature. As seen above, it is intended to form a single declaration of intent as a request for resident recall voting by combining the grounds for a request and signatures entered on the petition book, and thus, it is essential to establish one declaration of intent as to the request for resident recall voting. As such, a signature on the petition book that does not contain the grounds for a request shall be null and void pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act and Article 12(2)7 of the Residents Recall Act. In addition, as long as the purport of Article 9(1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act that made the person enter the grounds for a request in the petition book is interpreted as above, it shall be null and void, even if the delegated person made an oral explanation of the grounds for a request in the petition book, or made available

Meanwhile, even in accordance with the provisions of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, Article 12 (2) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, which applies mutatis mutandis Article 27 of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, provides that signatures shall be null and void because they fall under subparagraph 7 of the same Article (Article 27 of the Recall of Elected Officials Act and Article 12 (2) 7 of the Recall of Elected Officials Act shall be null and void (Article 27 of the Recall of Elected Officials Act and Article 12 (2) 7 of the Recall of Elected Officials Act shall be null and void. However, if signatures in violation of the methods and procedures prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Recall of Elected Officials Act are null and void, signatures in violation of the methods and procedures prescribed by the parent Act shall be null and void (in the absence of such interpretation, signatures in a book without an approval seal of the election commission shall not be null and void even if they violate Article 10 (3) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act), and Article 9 (1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act or a person who is delegated with the authority to request for recall shall use the signature or signature in violation of a request for recall.

Ultimately, as seen above, since the delegated person obtained the signature by the instant book that did not state the grounds for the claim at the time of receiving the signature from the residents, the signatures entered in the instant book shall be deemed null and void.

(2) Whether the Defendant’s each disposition of the instant case was unlawful and the degree of illegality

As seen above, since the signatures entered in the pertinent book are null and void, the request for recall voting of this case does not meet the requirements of Article 7 (1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act, and the defendant should have dismissed each request for recall voting of this case pursuant to Article 11 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, and therefore, each disposition of this case accepted each request for recall voting of this case which failed to meet the requirements is unlawful.

On the other hand, in confirming the validity of the signature signing book's signature, the defendant does not have a duty to review daily methods of performing the act of signing request, and such review is not physically possible. As to the defendant's argument that each disposition of this case is legitimate, the competent election commission shall dismiss a request for recall voting that does not meet the requirements of Article 7 (1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act. Thus, if the defendant accepted a request without rejection, it is deemed unlawful. In this case, if the competent election commission accepted the request without rejection, it is inevitable that it does not affect the illegality of the acceptance disposition. The issue of whether there was negligence on whether the competent election commission is aware of whether the requirements are met or not, or whether it was not aware of whether the requirements are met, does not affect the illegality of the acceptance

On the other hand, as to the degree of illegality of each of the dispositions of this case, since the request for recall voting of this case does not meet the requirements of Article 7 (1) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act as seen above, the defect of each disposition of this case by the defendant accepted the request is significant, notwithstanding Article 11 of the same Act. However, it is not easy for the defendant to easily understand whether he/she has obtained his/her signature with the sign or the sign or the sign or the sign or the sign or the sign or the sign or the sign or the sign or the sign or the sign or the sign of the signature of this case stating the grounds for the request for recall voting of this case at the time of the request for signature, and it is not clear that the signature or the sign or the seal on the book without the grounds for the request is invalid even if it is supplemented by other documents or verbal explanation. Thus, it is not clear that the defect of each disposition of this case is invalid. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case cannot be deemed null and void automatically

(3) Conclusion

Therefore, each of the dispositions of the defendant in this case is illegal, and the degree of illegality constitutes grounds for revocation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of each of the dispositions of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the preliminary claim seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of this case shall be accepted for each of the grounds, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jami-gu (Presiding Judge)