[1] Where the outer line of the mark indicated outside the column of the mark is combined only with the mark column of a specific candidate, the political party column, the name column or the column of the mark, the validity of the vote (effective)

[2] The case where the seal of the chairman of the voting district election commission and the seal of the party-recommended member are omitted, but can be seen as a regular ballot paper

[3] In a case where an election commission provides a balloting aid different from that provided under the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act, whether it is a ground for invalidation of voting (negative)

[1] In light of the purport of Articles 179(1)4, 179(3)3, and 180(2) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice, even if a mark of a certain ballot paper is marked outside the column of a candidate, if the outer line of the mark of a specific candidate is connected exclusively with the mark column of a specific candidate, the column of a political party, the name column, or the column of a mark, etc., such mark shall be deemed to correspond to the effective mark, and it shall be deemed to be obvious that it is put in the corresponding candidate.

[2] Where the private seal of the chairman of the voting district election commission and the seal of the party-recommended member are omitted, the official seal of the competent Gu/Si/Gun election commission is affixed even if the reason for omission is not specified in the voting record, and if it is judged that the ballot paper is a ballot paper duly issued by the chairman of the voting district election commission on the basis of the number of ballot papers issued and the number of voting tickets, preparation, management record, voting record, etc. recorded in the voting record, the elector's intention shall be respected and treated as a regular ballot paper,

[3] Even though the balloting aid is not provided in accordance with Article 159 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice, in case where the elector puts the balloting aid in the balloting booth, and in case where the elector puts the balloting aid in accordance with the balloting procedure using such balloting aid, the elector’s intention shall be respected, and the balloting aid shall be considered as “the balloting aid” as provided in Article 179(1)7 of the same Act.

[1] Articles 179 and 180 (2) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election / [2] Article 179 (1) 1 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election / [3] Articles 159 and 179 (1) 7 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do54 delivered on September 6, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 303) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Do23 delivered on July 12, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2530) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Do16 delivered on July 12, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2527)

Kim-ro (Attorney Jeong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Chairman of the Deputy Election Management Commission

Lee Jong-sung (Attorney Kang Jung-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 95Do10 delivered on October 4, 1996

The judgment below is reversed. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. All costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the records, the following reasons are as follows.

A. On June 27, 1995, in an election of a City/Do council member in the third constituency in the Donan-gun of Jeollabuk-do, which was implemented on June 27, 1995, the two candidates for the plaintiff (No. 1) who is the candidate for democratic free election (the plaintiff was the co-defendant, but the court below dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit against the plaintiff; hereinafter the plaintiff was referred to as the plaintiff) Lee Jong-sung (No. 2) who is the candidate for democratic free election. As a result of the ballot counting, the number of valid votes for each candidate was added to the plaintiff 7,095, and the number of valid votes for each candidate was added to the plaintiff 7,095, the intervenor 7,100, and accordingly, the Daan-Gun election commission decided as the elected person pursuant to Article 190(1) of the Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election

B. As a result, on the ground that the plaintiff, first instance in the order of receiving votes, filed a petition with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do election commission on the ground that the valid vote against the plaintiff was treated as a large invalid vote, and was illegal, the decision was dismissed on August 9, 1995, and the decision was made on August 9, 1995 that the plaintiff's petition was dismissed on the ground that the decision was justifiable.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an error in the instant ballot counting process, and determined as follows as to the validity of each of the Plaintiff and Intervenor’s valid votes and whether the voting at issue is invalid.

A. According to the result of the verification of the first and second ballot boxes by the court below, 7,095 marks are valid for the plaintiff, and 7,068 marks are valid for the intervenor. The 62 marks held by the court below as a dispute over the invalidation of oil between the parties is all 62 marks (of these, 60 marks kept by the court below as the result of the first verification are serial numbers of 1 to 60 marks; hereinafter referred to as 1, 2, 3, 59, 50 marks. The second marks kept by the court below as the result of the second verification are referred to as the "second verification marks". The issue of this case is whether they are invalid or not)

B. The 3 through 11 of the invitation marks were put on the ballot box using the balloting aid on which the “an absentee polling station” mark is affixed. All of the above ballot papers are sent to the elector listed on the electoral register for reported absentees in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. An absentee ballot paper returned after being put on the balloting booth at the absentee polling station. The balloting aid is used at the election commission at the time of the 14th presidential election in 1992. The above ballot paper is presumed to be used in the balloting booth because it is not known that the balloting aid used at the time of the presidential election because of a change in the balloting method at the absentee polling station, and it is presumed that the absentee elector has used it at the time of the presidential election and puts on the balloting booth by using it. Therefore, even if the above balloting aid is not a balloting aid in accordance with the method prescribed by the Act, it shall be deemed that the election commission’s front intention is respected, and thus, it shall be deemed as an election commission’s vote of the elector.

C. Part of the invitation table 1,2, 15, 25, 28, 28, 38, 39, 43, 47, 48, and 56 affixes the seal on one or several intervenors, and all or part of the confinement table 12, 13, 17, 27, 30, 31, 60 puts the seal on one or several intervenors (i.e., there is no 'remark' in its inside). The diameter is the same as the diameter at the time of signing the mark with a regular balloting aid. They correspond to the case where it is obvious that they have put the mark on the ballot box as provided in Article 179 (3) 1 of the Act by using the balloting aid of the election commission, and thus, it is clear that they have put the mark on the part of the plaintiff's column 20 in diameter (i.e., the seal 18).

On the other hand, although part of the 26 table is sealed on the column of "eacher" for an intervenor, the diameter of the table is larger than that of the regular balloting aid when it was sealed, or the diameter of the table cannot be measured. This is invalid as it is "a mark made with an aid, other than a balloting aid, as provided by Article 179 (1) 7 of the Act."

D. The custody slip 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 49, 53, 55, 58 (20) is sealed and sealed at the bottom of the column of the column of the column of the column of the entry against the intervenor. Part of the list of "each individual" is sealed and sealed on the top of the column of the column of the entry against the plaintiff. Any of them is not entered and sealed by the plaintiff or the intervenor. They are invalid because there is no clear statement that the elector puts on any candidate.

The custody slip 50 is affixed to the plaintiff's political party column, and 50 is affixed to the upper part of the plaintiff's political party column, but it is not sealed by entering the plaintiff's political party column. The custody slip 54 is affixed to the intervenor's column, and the defendant's list is affixed to the intervenor's column, and the defendant's mark is affixed to the intervenor's column, but the defendant's mark is affixed to the defendant's column, but the defendant's mark is affixed to the defendant's column.The additional mark 50,54 is a mark other than the candidate's column, so it is invalid by Article 179 (1) 6 of the Act.

E. The custody slip 21 puts a seal on the intervenor's column, and puts a part of the "sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet sweet s

F. Article 32 of the custody slip 32 puts a seal on the Intervenor’s column, and the Plaintiff’s candidate column also puts an unmanned seal on the Plaintiff’s column. The custody slip 42 puts a seal on the Plaintiff’s column, and puts two unmanneds affixed from the Plaintiff’s column to the Plaintiff’s candidate column. The custody slip 32 and 42 are invalid because it is apparent that it puts an unmanned.

On the other hand, the invitation table 37 places a 's list of 's candidates' on the intervenor's candidate column, and ask the person's body near the party-recommended column. 37 is the valid list of the intervenor.

G. The entry in the Intervenor’s ballot box 51 is recorded on the Intervenor’s ballot paper, and the above ballot paper is sealed only by the official seal of the election commission of the competent voting district council (the second voting district council, the second voting district council), and the private seal of the chairman of the election commission or the party-recommended member of the competent voting district council (the second voting district council, the second voting district council), and the second voting district council’s voting record is not written on the grounds that the private seal of the chairman of the voting district committee is omitted, and there is no statement on the grounds that the seal of the chairman of the voting district committee is omitted, or on other grounds that the seal of the party-recommended member was omitted. Therefore, the invitation slip

H. Therefore, among the issues table, the number of valid votes of the plaintiff is 4; the number of valid votes of the intervenor is 27 marks; if the complete votes above are added, the plaintiff's final valid votes are 7,099 marks (4+7,095 marks) and the intervenor's final valid votes are 7,095 marks (27 +7,068 marks). Therefore, the third constituency of the 3rd constituency of the Bupyeongan-gun Group should be the plaintiff who is the first instance in the order of obtained votes. Therefore, the above decision made as the elected person is unlawful, considering the intervenor's votes as the first instance in the order of obtained votes.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 179 (1) of the Act provides that "the vote falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be null and void." However, Article 179 (3) of the Act provides that "the vote falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be null and void." Article 179 (3) of the Act provides that "the vote shall not become invalid." Article 179 (3) of the Act provides that "the vote shall not be put in addition to the column for the mark, and it shall be obvious to which candidate the mark is put in," and Article 180 (2) of the Act provides that "the elector's intention shall be respected in determining the validity of the vote." In light of the purport of each of the above provisions, even if a certain ballot paper is put outside of the column for a candidate, if the outer line of the ballot is connected exclusively with any of the columns of a specific candidate's marks, the mark shall be deemed invalid and it shall be deemed that it constitutes a candidate's mark.

However, according to the above 2. D., which the court below duly confirmed, the custody table 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 49, 53, 55, 58 (20), is sealed and sealed at the bottom of the column for the entry of the intervenor, and the custody table 54 is sealed at the bottom of the intervenor's mark, and as long as the facts are identical, it is obvious that all of the above custody table 21 marks are put on the part of the intervenor's mark.

Like the above 2. D., the court below duly confirmed that part of the 2.D. list 29,57 (2) of the custody slip 29,57 (2) is attached to the upper part of the column of the column of the plaintiff. 50 of the custody slip 50 is attached to the plaintiff's political party column, and the plaintiff's 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 1. 2. 2. 1. 2.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the above 24 marks fall under the invalid list on the grounds as stated in its holding. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidity of voting, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Where the private seal of the chairperson of the voting district election commission and the seal affixed by a party-recommended member are omitted, the official seal of the competent Gu/Si/Gun election commission is affixed even if the reason for omission is not specified in the voting record, and if it is judged that the ballot paper is a ballot paper duly issued by the chairperson of the voting district election commission through the number of ballot papers issued and the number of voting tickets, preparation, management record, voting record, etc. recorded in the voting record, the elector's intention should be respected and treated as a regular ballot paper (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do16, Jul. 12, 1996).

Therefore, the court below's decision that the list 51 should be deemed invalid because the chairman of the voting district election commission did not review whether the list 51 should be deemed to be a ballot paper properly issued to the elector, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the regular ballot paper, and it is obvious that the above error affected the result of the judgment, and therefore there is a reason to point this out.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient for a direct judgment of the party members, and it is decided as follows in accordance with Article 227 of the Act, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. First, according to the results of the two-time verification by the lower court, 7,095 marks are valid for the Plaintiff, and 7,068 marks are valid for the Intervenor.

B. Following verification results and facts duly admitted by the lower court are as follows: (a) the invalidity of 62 votes held by the lower court due to disputes over invalidity between the parties is determined as follows.

The list 3 to 11 was put on by using the balloting aid on which the "sweet 3 to 11" mark is stamped, and the above balloting aid is not a balloting aid in accordance with the method of marking as prescribed by the Act, but it should be considered as the balloting aid of the election commission. Among them, the custody slip 11 (1) among them is valid of the plaintiff, and the list 3 to 10 (8) of the custody slip is valid of the intervenor.

The invitation table 1, 2, 15, 25, 28, 28, 39, 43, 47, 48, and 56 places a seal on one or several intervenors, and the custody table 12, 13, 17, 27, 30, 31, and 60 puts a seal on one or several intervenors (i.e., there is no 'remark' in the invitation table). They correspond to the case where it is obvious that the mark is put on one or several intervenors by using the recording tools of the election commission. They correspond to the case where it is obvious that the mark is put on one, and part of the column of "O" (no 18 mark) is marked on the column of "O" (no 'remark' in it is marked on the plaintiff). The second verification mark 2 is valid for the plaintiff.

On the other hand, although part of the 26 table is sealed on the column of "each participant," the diameter of which is larger than that of the regular balloting aid when it was sealed, or the diameter of which is not measured. This is invalid as it is the case where the mark is put on an aid other than the balloting aid of the election commission.

As examined in the judgment on the grounds of appeal above, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 49, 53, 55, 58 (20 marks) of the custody table is sealed at the bottom of the column of the box against the intervenor. The custody table 54 places a seal on the column of the intervenor's mark at the bottom of the column of the mark of the intervenor and puts a seal on all the intervenors (21 marks) and puts a mark at the bottom of the intervenor's mark (21 marks). It is valid for the plaintiff to affix a seal on the column of the column of the intervenor's mark, and it is valid for the plaintiff to affix a seal on the column of the column of the plaintiff's column of 50.

The list 21, 52, and 59 shall be invalid in addition to each candidate's column.

The 32, 42 of the host decree is invalid in that it is clear that the seal is affixed with a unmanned.

The invitation slip 37 puts a seal on the intervenor's candidate column, and ask several pages near the party-recommended column, and it is valid as a mark on the intervenor (1 mark).

With respect to the invalidity of the custody slip 51, the examination required for objection is less.

C. Therefore, the number of valid votes of the plaintiff shall be the total 7,102 votes (7,095 + 1 + 3 marks) and the number of valid votes of the intervenor shall be at least 7,116 marks (7,068 marks + 8 + 18 marks + 18 marks + 18 marks + 51 marks). The elected persons of the third constituency in the Bupyeong-gun District shall be the first participant in the order of obtained votes, and even if there is an error in the coefficient of obtained votes of the Bupyeong-Gun election commission, the decision made by the intervenor as the elected person shall be justified in the conclusion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which asserts the invalidation of the plaintiff's election, is dismissed, and all costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)