1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a corporation established pursuant to Article 41 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, which has a branch office in the area located in the relevant administrative agency of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Do, and Special Self-Governing City. The plaintiff was the head of the 10th branch office of the defendant, and C was the head of the 10th branch office of the defendant.

B. On July 8, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced the details of the election, including the election day (as of July 29, 2016) and the registration period of candidate (as of July 13, 2016 through July 15, 2016) of the Association’s 11th class election, and the Plaintiff and C registered as a candidate for the election of head of chapter B.

C. On July 29, 2016, at the 11st Group B election (hereinafter “instant election”), the number of voters 2,296, 1,066 ( approximately 46.4%), the Plaintiff obtained 443 votes ( approximately 41.6%), and C’s 620 votes ( approximately 58.2%), and C’s 620 votes ( approximately 58.2%), each of which was conducted by the Defendant’s 11th Group B election (hereinafter “B branch office election commission”) decided C, the largest number of voters on July 29, 2016, as the elected person of the branch office B (hereinafter “decision on the elected person of this case”). D.

On August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an election campaign in violation of the election regulations with C and its election campaign members on the B’s election campaign on the B’s election campaign, and accordingly, the instant decision on the elected person was alleged to be null and void. However, on August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff was notified of the decision that “C and its election campaign members were partly corrective measures against the election campaign, and the remainder of the election campaign cannot be determined as illegal election campaign.”

E. On August 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for retrial with the National Election Commission at each level under the jurisdiction of the Defendant. However, around August 29, 2016, the said National Election Commission deliberated further for more careful and fair decision as to the details of the objection, but only with the content of the objection.