A case of invalidation of election - Where there is no private voter of the chairman of the election commission of the voting district;

If five ballot papers are found in the ballot paper handled as invalid in the Plaintiff’s ballot paper because the elector’s seal was affixed by the authority of the election commission for the competent constituency but the seal of the chairman of the voting district election commission is not affixed, and all of them are put in the Plaintiff’s ballot paper in the Plaintiff’s ballot paper, if the chairman of the voting district election commission’s private seal is affixed, it is treated as invalid by the negligence of the manager of the election affairs, so if the sum of the votes obtained by the Plaintiff exceeds the number of votes obtained by the elected person, it is recognized that the result of the election has influenced.

Articles 101, 103, 64(2), and 84(1)1 of the Act on the Election of Representatives of the Uniformrs, Representatives of the National Assembly

Supreme Court Decision 67No4 Decided June 3, 1968

[Judgment of the court below]

Gyeonggi-do Election Commission Chairperson of the 1st election commission

Seoul High Court Decision 78Ra2 delivered on January 23, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are examined.

The court below found five ballot papers printed with regular ballot papers from among 74 ballot papers added up with invalid ballot papers in the second ballot district in the constituency No. 1 Group 2 of this case, and affixed a seal to the official seal of the election commission of Group 1 of the voting district election commission, but the chairman of the voting district election commission did not affix a seal to the private person as provided by the highest number of the chairman of the voting district election commission. On the above five ballot papers, the court below found the fact that all of the above five ballot papers were put a mark on the plaintiff's column, and there is no error of fact-finding.

In fact, if the chairman of the voting district election commission takes the place on five copies of the ballot papers, it shall not be treated as an invalid vote, and it shall be calculated as the plaintiff's effective vote, because the private person issues ballot papers omitted to the elector by the negligence of the manager of the election affairs, and thereby, the result is treated as an invalid vote. Therefore, the original judgment that the plaintiff should be added up with the plaintiff's effective vote in the invalid vote is justifiable, and the opinion that the plaintiff should be treated as an invalid vote is inconsistent with the dissenting opinion that does not comply with the above case that the regular ballot paper should not be used, and therefore there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or determination.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, in a case where the ballot paper was delivered to the elector without a private seal of the chairman of the voting district election commission as prescribed by the Election Act, and had the elector cast his vote, it cannot be deemed that the elector’s intention or gross negligence on the ballot paper should be considered as the mistake on the part of the manager of the election affairs. Therefore, the original judgment to the same

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

Justices Sap-ho (Presiding Justice) Man-ho (Presiding Justice)