The election lawsuit of Article 146 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act and the meaning of the election lawsuit of Article 145 of the same Act

The election lawsuit of Article 146 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act is a lawsuit that contests the validity of the election on the grounds that there is an error of law in deciding the individual winner on the premise that the election is valid, and the election lawsuit of Article 145 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act is a lawsuit that contests the validity of the election on the grounds that the management and execution of the election violates the provisions concerning the election. The issue that there is a reason for an individual elector in the election campaign process is only a violation of the Election Act, and thus, it can not be a cause for invalidation of election due to the punishment

Articles 145, 146 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, the Defendants’ General Law Firm, Attorneys Jeong Jae-han, et al., Counsel for the Defendants

December 21, 198

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision that Defendant ○○ City Election Commission decided Defendant 1 as a member of the National Assembly, which was implemented on April 26, 1988, is invalid.

(Reserve) In the election for the National Assembly member implemented by Defendant ○○ Election Commission on April 28, 1988, the election for the election for the City of ○○ City shall be null and void.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

In the election of a National Assembly member conducted at ○○ City on April 26, 1988, the fact that Defendant 1 was elected as a member of the National Assembly has no dispute between the parties.

If we see the various facts that the plaintiff is paying for the reason of the invalidation of election and the invalidation of election, the following lectures shall be made.

(1) In the election of the National Assembly member of ○○ City, carried out April 26, 198, Defendant 1 purchased more than 10,000 won per piece of gift tax, and made an illegal election campaign by spraying money or goods, such as having the election campaign worker go to the elector, or holding entertainment, etc.

(2) On April 17, 198, MF-Si ○○○ Broadcasting Station called the Plaintiff’s name to △△△△△, not ○C, at 7:0 p.m. local news hours, and distorted and distorted the police trend of 7,000 people for the Intervenor at the time of the rally for the formation of political party. In addition, on April 25, 198, the election day, the election day reported that Nonparty 1 was confirmed and announced the status of each candidate’s votes, along with the report that Nonparty 1 was confirmed. The foregoing broadcast was sent to the public, and four candidates except Nonparty 1, expressed the intention to attend the general election book in front of the citizens, and Defendant 10,00 was dissipatedd with the Defendant and the Plaintiff, and supported the said Defendant.

(3) On April 21, 198, the election commission of ○○ City sent 55,816 copies of the electoral campaign bulletin to Defendant 1 on April 24, 198, and then re-printed and sent to the elector a copy of 36,920 of the electoral campaign bulletin under Defendant 1’s name, which is the correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction correction is not an unfair election management. In addition, the above election commission neglected to perform its duties by neglecting Defendant 1’s illegal election campaign act and false broadcasting. The above election commission arranged the main points of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

2. First, we examine the assertion of invalidation of election.

An election lawsuit under Article 146 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act is a lawsuit that contests the validity of a decision on individual elected persons on the premise that the election is valid. Therefore, the election becomes invalidated under Articles 185 and 186 of the above Act when the elected person or the election campaign manager of a candidate is convicted of committing an act corresponding to an election criminal in the course of an election campaign, but even if such fact is presumed only to exist in the ground of the plaintiff's assertion, it cannot be said that the election lawsuit is the cause of an election lawsuit.

It is clear that the plaintiff's invalidation of election is without merit.

3. On the argument that the next election invalidation is invalid

An election lawsuit under Article 145 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act is a lawsuit disputing the validity of the election on the ground that the management and execution of the election violate the provisions concerning the election. And Article 147 of the same Act provides that even if there is a fact that there is a violation of the provisions concerning the election in this lawsuit, the whole or part of the election shall be invalidated.

However, the problem that there is a reason to be an individual elector in the election campaign process is only a violation of the election law and thus, the reason that the election can be invalidated due to such punishment can not be the reason for invalidation of election.

The part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an illegal election campaign, such as the spread of false information about the spread of money by Defendant 1, even if such fact is the time limit, is only subject to punishment as an election criminal. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove that the ○○ City Election Commission, knowing the illegality, neglected his duties, etc.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 submitted by the plaintiff as to the contents of the report of the broadcasting station, each testimony of the non-party Nos. 1 to 3 and the non-party No. 2, the non-party No. 3, and the non-party No. 4 refers to the plaintiff's name at the local news time to △△△, not ○○○, but the plaintiff's name at the local news time. However, the plaintiff's explanation on the side of the broadcasting station pursuant to paragraph (1) was the actual number of the broadcast station, and the television No. 14,300, the non-party No. 5,517, the non-party No. 1 to the non-party No. 35,060, and the non-party No. 1 to the non-party No. 39.2,060, which were the non-party No. 1 to the above broadcast station's name at the election commission.

In addition, even if the fact that the contents of the election campaign bulletin are sent, it cannot be viewed as illegal or unjust because only such fact exists. Therefore, it cannot be a ground for invalidation of election.

As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be exempted from rejection even if it is without merit.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)