The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the voting paper in the upper part of the "chief director" column, which written only the words "chief director" in the part of the voting paper divided into four columns, such as "the entry candidate section", "the mark", "name", and "the mark column", in the election of officers of community credit cooperatives from the left side to the right side, shall not be deemed to be an "the entry candidate section", "the entry candidate section", in which only the words "chief chief director" was written without any separate distinction, shall be deemed to be an invalid mark, even though the location of the voting paper conforms accurately with the height of the mark or name column of specific candidate, such circumstance alone shall not be deemed to be an "the entry of a mark outside the column of "the mark" as provided in the above election regulations for executive officers of community credit cooperatives, and it shall not be deemed to be an "the case where it is obvious which candidate put

Subparagraph 7 of Article 7 and Article 17 (2) of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act

Sung-sung (Attorney Choi Byung-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seocho Saemaeul Community Fund (Attorney Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2005Na1467 decided September 7, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the evidence adopted by the court below, Article 29 (1) 3 of the Rules on the Election of Officers of the Defendant’s Treasury provides that “the mark is not recognizable in any column.” Article 29 (2) provides that “In addition to the column for the mark, it is clear to which candidate the mark is put” and “the mark is put on the two candidates’ column, and it is obvious to which candidate the mark is put ( subparagraph 4)” as the valid votes. The voting paper used at the time of the election in this case is divided into four columns, including “the entry candidate category,” “the name”, “the name”, and “the mark”, “the name”, and “the mark is not put on the front line, and it can not be seen that the candidate’s name or “the mark is not put on the front line” in this case without distinguishing the mark from the front line. However, the above column of the candidate’s name and the front line cannot be seen as identical with the mark column of the Plaintiff’s column.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the failure or invalidity of voting, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. In light of the records, we affirm the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that there is a defect in the procedure of judging the invalidation of the voting paper in this case, and we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there is an error in violation of the rules of

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)