1. Chapter B of the Korean Automobile Trade Union, Daejeon Metropolitan City Regional Bus Trade Union, which was conducted by the Defendant on July 1, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a trade union consisting of the workers of the company B in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, which is a company-level trade union under the Korean Automobile Trade Union Federation, Daejeon Metropolitan City, and the bus trade union, and the plaintiff and the defendant's assistant intervenor are the members of the defendant.

B. As the term of office of the Plaintiff, who had the head of the Defendant’s branch, expired on August 27, 2017, the Defendant constituted an election commission consisting of the chairperson E in order to elect the new head of the branch (hereinafter “first election”) (hereinafter “first election”). On June 30, 2017, the Defendant held an election for the head of the branch office (hereinafter “first election”).

In the above election, 220 persons among the defendant's members participated in the voting, and as a result of the ballot counting, the plaintiff 95 votes, 51 votes of the defendant's supplementary intervenor, F37 votes, G14 votes, G10 votes, H10 votes, I8 votes, and J5 votes respectively, and the half of the votes did not go.

C. Accordingly, on July 1, 2017, the Defendant, who was the largest holder of the votes and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, the next highest holder of the votes, as a candidate, carried out the election for the head of the election (hereinafter “the second election”).

In the above election, 220 of the members of the defendant association participated in the voting, and the plaintiff and the defendant auxiliary intervenor obtained each 110 vote as a result of ballot counting. D.

On July 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection on the front line, stating that “In the process of the second election, I show the ballot papers on which I put the Defendant’s Intervenor’s ballot papers in the balloting booth to the Defendant’s assistant in the election, and leaves the ballot papers on the ballot box, which is naturally null and void, and the result of the second election in this case is the Plaintiff’s 110 votes and the Defendant’s assistant should be decided as the elected person.”

On the other hand, the defendant's assistant intervenor also violated the election management regulations on July 2, 2017, and thus deprived of the candidate's qualification. Even if the decision is made as the elected person, it constitutes a reason for invalidation of election, and I's ballot paper.