logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.05.11 2014수22
시/도지사선거무효
Text

All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The fact that the F candidate recommended by the Defendant in the Do governor election (hereinafter referred to as “instant election”) among the 6th nationwide elections implemented on June 4, 2014, that the F candidate was decided as the elected person as the elected person, is significant in that the F candidate was decided as the elected person.

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the election of this case is invalid for the following reasons. A.

Since the ballot counting machine used in the election of this case constitutes an integrated system of ballot counting devices and ballot counting computers that output ballot papers and control them, its use is limited to the special election pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Addenda of the Public Official Election Act (amended by March 16, 1994) and the special election pursuant to Article 278(4) of the Public Official Election Act, and it does not comply with the procedural regulations, such as public relations for electors and consultation with political parties that form negotiating groups in the National Assembly. Thus, the election of this case in violation of such regulations cannot be deemed to have completed the valid ballot counting procedure.

B. The main text of Article 178(3) of the Public Official Election Act that requires members of the Gu/Si/Gun election commission to sign or seal the ballot counting instead of signing and sealing the ballot counting on the ballot-counting list is unconstitutional since it is not guaranteed the accuracy of the ballot-counting. Thus, Articles 178(1) and 181(2) of the Public Official Election Act do not limit the number of ballot-counting boxes for calculating the number of ballot-counting at the same time and limit the number of ballot-counting witnesses to a certain size is unconstitutional, and thus, it is unlawful that the Defendant did not post the ballot-counting

3. Determination

A. The election lawsuit stipulated in Articles 222 and 224 of the Public Official Election Act is a collective action and is an election during a series of elections.

arrow