1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning the background of the instant disposition and the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment by the court of first instance concerning this part is identical to that of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judgment by the court of first instance (the grounds of the judgment regarding the Defendant’s defense of this case); and (b) thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) there is a serious defect in the composition of the Selection Committee for the selection of the Defendant’s residents’ autonomous council members; (b) the establishment of criteria for the examination; and (c) the examination procedures; and (d) the instant disposition is null and void; and (e) even if

1) The Defendant failed to meet the notification, holding, and deliberation procedures of the Selection Committee for the primary document screening qualification examination and the selection of persons subject to interview under Article 11 of the Operational Rules. Accordingly, H passed the primary document screening qualification examination and was selected and commissioned as a member through an interview of candidates for residents' autonomous council members even though he/she did not meet the qualification requirements under Article 17(2) of the Ordinance. 2) The Defendant arbitrarily changed the criteria for the interview evaluation points from “60 points for each interview member’s total evaluation points” to “60 points for each interview member’s total evaluation points.”

3) In organizing the Selection Committee, the Defendant was composed of five members, including those who have a substantial interest with the candidate, disregarding the existing practices consisting of the head of Dong, the chairman of the residents' autonomous council, and the head of the agency within the jurisdiction. 4) The Defendant is unjustifiable by allowing the selection committee members to interview the candidates of the residents' autonomous council members in order from the method of conducting interviews to the candidates of the resident autonomous council members at the same time upon the interview of the Selection Committee at the same time.