2014Guhap1541. Invalidity, etc. of the resolution of appointment as chairman

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

H City Council

5, 2015 19

July 14, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims are dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

At the first plenary session of the 17th extraordinary session on July 3, 2014, the decision that the Defendant would appoint I as the chairman of the Defendant is invalid. Preliminaryly, the decision that the Defendant would appoint I as the chairman of the Defendant at the 17th extraordinary session on July 3, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the resolution on appointment;

A. On June 4, 2014, the sixth City/Si/Gu election was implemented on June 4, 2014, 222 members including the Plaintiffs were elected and constituted the Defendant Council. Eight members including the Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs andJ) are members of the State Council of New Political Residents, and 13 members including I (I, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, Q, Q, R, T, U, and V are members of the State Council of New Political People, and the remainder (W) are members of the State Council.

나. 피고 의회는 2014. 7. 3. 개최된 제177회 임시회 제1차 본회의(이하 '이 사건 본 회의'라 한다)에서 임시의장 ﹐ 의원의 주재하에 의장 선출 선거(이하 '이 사건 선거'라 한다)를 실시하였고, 그 결과 출석의원 22명 중 과반수인 15명의 표를 얻은 I 의원을 피고 의회의 의장으로 선임하는 의결을 하였다(이하 '이 사건 선임의결'이라 한다). [인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1, 3호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Whether the resolution on the appointment of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In light of the seat distribution of the Defendant Council immediately before the decision on the appointment of this case, if a member belonging to the new one is to leave even 20 and 3, the number of the members belonging to the new one and E members belonging to the new political democracy were the same, and eventually, E members, who are the oldest, may be elected as the Speaker, or E members may be elected as the Speaker by obtaining at least 11 votes who are a majority of E members. In this situation, the members belonging to the new one party, in advance, shall designate N members in order to prevent the escape mark in order to have I members elected as the Speaker, shall be designated as N members in advance, and the ballot papers shall be put into the ballot box before they are put in the ballot box, and accordingly, 12 members belonging to the new one party agreed to show the ballot papers in advance to the N members and to present the ballot papers in advance, and then the ballot papers were put in the ballot box, and therefore, the appointment of a new one member belonging to the new one party shall be invalid or invalid, as it violates the principle of secret voting by the voting.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The minutes of the instant plenary session on the instant election process are recorded as follows.

(10:04) 1. The case of the election of the Speaker (10:09) ○○ by proxy for the Speaker will present the case of the election of the Speaker in paragraph (1). The order of the election of the Speaker in charge of the ○○○○○○ shall be the order of election by constituency, name and age, and the order of the election of the Speaker. The order of the election of the Speaker in charge of the ○○○○○○○ shall be the order of the election by constituency, and the name and name, but the thickness of the National Assembly members shall be as follows: the ballot paper shall be collected from the employees’ seat so that it can not be clearly marked on the ballot paper column in the ballot paper, and the ballot paper shall be inserted into the ballot box and returned to the seat. The

| 투표의 무효 및 기권 판정은 의장님과 감표위원님께서 협의하여 결정하며 무효 및 기권의 판정기준은 배부해 드린 판정기준표의 예시와 같습니다. 판정기준의 예시를 보면무효인 경우는 2인 이상 기표한 경우, 2명의 구분선상에 기표하여 누구에게 기표를 한것인지 식별이 어려운 경우 그리고 정해진 기표용구가 아닌 성명, 문자 또는 무인 등을찍은 경우, 3차 결선투표 시 결선 후보자로 확정된 후보자 외에 다른 후보자에게 기표한 경우입니다.○ 의장직무대행 JH시의회 회의규칙 제46조 제2항의 규정에 따라 감표위원을 지명하겠습니다. 감포위원은 L 의원과 F 의원을 지명합니다.OR의원- (의석에서) 감표위원을 어느 형식으로 이렇게 정해 가지고 하는 겁니까?0 의회사무국장 Y양 정당별로 감표위원은 돌아가면서 하기 때문에 일련별로 순서를 정해 가지고 순서대로 1명씩 임의로 지명을 했습니다. 그래서 새누리당에서 L 의원님이 오늘 감표위원을 하셨다면 다음번에는 새누리당 13명의 일련번호 순서대로 착착 정해 나갈 것입니다.ON의원- (의적에서) 우리 새누리당에서는 한 사람을 정해 놨습니다. 정해 놓은 사람이 감표위원으로 앉기로 그렇게 이야기가 됐는데 우리하고 상의 없이 하는 건 맞지 않습니다.○ 의장직무대행 J- 우리 새정치민주연합도 그런 논의가 있었습니까?(없습니다.' 하는 의원 많음)그러면 새정치민주연합의 감표위원은 FF으로 결정을 하고 새누리당 감표위원으로추천하신 분이 어느 분이세요?CN 의원입니다.'하는 의원 있음)그러면 지방자치도 정당정치니까 L 의원 자리로 돌아가 주시고 정당에서 추천한N 의원님 감표위원으로 나와 주시면 되겠습니다.(10:18 투표개시)

(10:25 투표종료)(명패함 개함, 명패수 점검, 투표함 개함, 투표수 점검)(표 집계)○ 의장직무대행 J개표가 완료되었으므로 개표결과를 말씀드리겠습니다. 총 투표수 22표 중 E 의원7표, I 의원 15표 그러므로 H시의회 회의규칙 제8조의 규정에 의거 과반수를 득표한 | 의원이 의장에 당선되었음을 선포합니다.(의장 | 당선인사)2. 부의장 선출의 건(10:33)0 의장 |- 의사일정 제2항 부의장 선출의 건을 상정합니다.OC 의원- (의석에서) 원활한 의사진행을 위해 20분간 정회를 요청합니다.(10:35 회의중지)(11:32 계속개의)0 의장 |성원의 되었으므로 회의를 속개하겠습니다.OC 의원- (의적에서) 이번 의장 선거에서 민주주의 투표 4대 원칙 중 하나인 비밀투표를 어기고감표위원에게 공개 후 투표함에 넣는 행위는 H시민을 대표하는 의원으로서 신의성실의 원칙을 위반하고 의회 기능을 마비시키는 중대한 사안이므로 적절한 조치가 있을때까지 정회를 요청합니다.

2) The ballot papers for the election of this case are as follows. The method of voting is as follows. The ballot papers for the election of this case shall be delivered to the front of the balloting booth in the name of the assemblyman who is to elect the chairman of the ballot paper at the balloting booth, and after being given the name tag and ballot paper in the name side of the assemblyman who is to elect the chairman of the ballot paper at the balloting booth, the ballot paper is put in the name tag and ballot box in front of the balloting booth (after the voting is completed, the ballot box is opened and the ballot box is opened after checking whether the number of the name tag and ballot papers is identical

A person shall be appointed.

The back of a ballot paper)

The order of election* of the Speaker shall be by constituency, name (Ada net).

3) According to images and photographs taken by the voting process of the instant election, the situation at the time of voting

the following shall be applicable:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Gap's statements or images, Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 15 through 21, 23, and 24 (including branch numbers), the result of this court's verification, the result of plaintiff F's personal examination, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In a case where there is a reason in contravention of the statutes in the election procedure, the relevant election does not become null and void solely on the basis of the fact that there is a reason in contravention of such statutes, and only if it is recognized that the freedom and fairness of the election, which is the basic ideology of the election, is considerably infringed and thereby has influenced the result of the election, by interfering with the vote by free judgment of electors due to a reason in contravention of such statutes, such election shall be null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da10

2) In the instant election process, as seen earlier, K, R, S, and V put ballot papers into a ballot box by having the members belonging to the new Enurie wear the ballot box outside the column of the ballot box. However, in full view of the aforementioned facts, the aforementioned facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs were sufficiently sufficient to conclude that the members belonging to the new Enurie Party disclosed their ballot papers to the National Assembly members, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on a different premise is without merit.

A) The principle of confidential election is to protect free and fair elections by preventing a third party from being aware of whom the elector cast, thereby properly reflecting the elector’s intent. Even if the elector had to put a ballot paper in a ballot box ex post facto after completing his/her vote according to his/her intent, it is difficult to view that the legal interest protected by the principle of confidential election was infringed even if the content of the ballot paper was easily known or is likely to be known to the outside.

B) In the situation where T, L, and S, a member, etc., who was posted as a candidate in the process of being elected as a candidate for the Speaker who belongs to the newly held party through the intra-party competition, accounts for 13 seats at the time of the instant election, and the members of the newly held party who already secured a majority of seats, there is doubt as to whether there was a need for a prior agreement to prevent departure from the danger at the risk of danger.

C) The Plaintiffs asserted that the members of the New Earri Party set the NE as the ballot inspector to implement the prior agreement on the disclosure of ballot papers. However, if there was prior agreement as alleged by the Plaintiffs, the members of the New Earri Party are only divided the number of members, if they show their ballot papers to the persons selected as the ballot inspector, and there is no reasonable reason to have them selected the NE as the ballot inspector for the disclosure of ballot papers. D) NE members of the New Earri Party showed the form of turning off the ballot papers to some members, turning off the ballot papers to each other, or driving down the door with the cross-party, but it is difficult for NE members to confirm the contents of the voting agreement to the extent that they are open to the public, as alleged in the above.

E) The N Council members and the Plaintiff F Council members, as the ballot inspectors, followed by putting their name cards in the ballot box, without being bound by a member belonging to the new one or the New Political Democratic Union, as the ballot inspectors, and thereby putting them in the ballot box. Therefore, solely on the fact that at the time when the ballot paper was put into the ballot box, the N Council’s starting line was directed toward the ballot page, it cannot be readily concluded that such behavior was aimed at confirming the voting contents of the National Assembly members belonging to the new one (a ballot box was set in front of the F Council members, and there was a ballot box before the N Council members).

F) Although it is deemed that M,O, and T Council members were to put ballot papers into a ballot box with only one time, the same applies to I and N Council members affiliated with the new one. In the case of I Council members, they were candidates for the design of the instant election, and in the case of N Council members, they were not subject to the presentation of their voting contents, it is difficult to readily conclude that M Council members had the intention to produce the ballot papers to the reduction Council members.

G) The plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiff F member, who is a member of the New Political Democratic Union, was seated immediately next to the N member and did not raise any objection immediately after the voting was completed, that the plaintiff F member did not immediately raise any objection because it was erroneous that the plaintiff F member's presentation of ballot papers to the members of the voting for the first time due to the relationship between the plaintiff F member and the first time of the voting was an act. In light of the voting process, the plaintiff F member's statement that the plaintiff F member of the National Assembly did not raise any objection without delay is insufficient in itself. In light of the voting process, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff F member's statement made by the plaintiff F member that he had already been aware of and raised an objection in the voting process is natural, such as dividing the two members with N members.

H) At the time of the instant election, H-si’s members put a ballot paper in the order of name, and put the ballot paper and a name tag at the balloting booth established on the right side, and then put the ballot paper again into the ballot box located in the front of the ballot counting committee members. However, it cannot be ruled out that the distance between the members representing the members is relatively short of 10 seconds to 20 seconds, and the size of the ballot paper was a size of a A4 paper that is larger than that used in general elections for public office. As such, it cannot be ruled out that there is a possibility that the members were folding in the process of moving the ballot paper to a ballot box without putting the ballot paper on

I) If there was a prior agreement, all members of the newly held party must show their voting contents to the ballot inspectors, and as seen earlier, it is confirmed that only K, R, S, and V members have folded ballot papers in a ballot box in a way that only the voting content can be seen. Thus, it can only be a result due to the personal negligence of the above members, and it is difficult to conclude that there was a direction that the members of the newly held party agreed to disclose the voting contents in advance or interfere with voting by free decision.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims of this case are all dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the Senior Judge;

Judges Park Jong-do

Judges Park Jae-young