[1] The case holding that in light of the party constitution, party rules, and purpose of establishing a committee for examination of the parties, the committee for each City/Do party does not have the authority to request a re-resolution on the examination and decision of the committee for examination of the success of the City/Do party

[2] Whether a political party can recommend candidates through so-called strategic contestation (affirmative), and in a case where the strategic contestation is made through democratic procedures, whether a candidate who was deprived of the success has a duty to accept the result of such success (affirmative)

[1] The case holding that in light of the party constitution, the party regulations and the purport of establishing the City/Do party competition review committee, as separate organizations from the City/Do party steering committee, the City/Do party competition review committee shall be deemed to have priority or at least equivalent status to the City/Do party steering committee in its business affairs and decisions related to the City/Do party, so it shall not be deemed that the City/Do party steering committee has the authority to ask the City/Do party steering committee to re-decide the decision of the City/Do party competition review committee, on the ground that it shall not be deemed that there is a right to ask the City/Do party steering committee to make re-decision, and it shall be deemed that there is a right to disclose their own opinions on the decision of the City/Do party competition review committee, and the final voting rights on the decision of the City/Do party competition review committee

[2] Article 57-2 of the Public Official Election Act provides that a candidate who is not necessarily required to be recommended by a political party by the method of recommending a candidate shall be deemed to be the same as the competition if the strategic competition is made through democratic procedures. In this case, the Public Official Election Act stipulates that a candidate who is a candidate for the relevant political party may not be registered as a candidate in the same constituency of the relevant election shall not be elected as a candidate (Article 57-2), and that a candidate who is not elected as a candidate for the relevant political party, as a candidate for the competition, shall not be elected as a candidate in the same constituency of the relevant election (Article 57-2). Thus, it is reasonable that a candidate who is elected by the method of strategic competition should be returned to the result of the competition, and as long as the inappropriate candidate is decided as a result of the competition, or there is a defect in violation of the procedure in the process of public administration examination, only the competition candidate may not appeal the strategic success decision itself by asserting that only the candidate is a democratic procedure.

[1] Article 8 (2) of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Article 8 (2) of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Public Official Election Act

Applicant (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

One person from Cheongbuk-do, Chungcheongnam-do et al.

1. The respondent shall not hold a national participation competition for the decision of candidates for the petition-related military service until the highest committee of Korea National Committee on the recommendation of candidates for the petition-related military service has passed a resolution on the decision of Korea National Committee on the candidates for public office of Korea National Committee on the candidates for public office of Korea National Assembly, which is implemented on May 31, 2006 by the respondent, as a candidate for the local election of the petition-related military office of Korea National Assembly of Chungcheongnam-do;

2. The remainder of the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's applications and the Respondent's Respondent's applications are dismissed

3. The portion of the application cost for the applicant and the respondent shall be borne by the applicant, and the portion of the application cost for the Chungcheongbuk-do Party to the applicant and the respondent shall be borne by the respondent.

1. On May 31, 2006, the respondent shall temporarily determine that the applicant is in the position of the candidate subject to a resolution of the Steering Committee of the Chungcheongbuk-do Party according to the decision of the Recommendation Review Committee for Candidates for Public Office of the Korea-do Party.

2. The respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent

3. The respondent may not hold a national participation competition for the decision-making of the candidate for the petition-gun of Korea, until the date of the instant decision, a request for interpretation and request for disciplinary punishment on the respondent, and a request for disciplinary punishment for the decision-making of the candidate for the petition-gun of Korea, which was enforced on May 31, 2006.

4. Respondents shall

(a)in the case of a violation of paragraph 3, 20,000 won per day of the number of days of such violation;

(b) Where paragraph (4) is violated, 500,000 won shall be jointly and severally;

under payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. The respondent is a political party established in accordance with Article 8 of the Constitution and the Political Parties Act, and the respondent is the Chungcheongbuk-do Party established in accordance with the Political Parties Act (hereinafter “Cheongbuk-do Party”) is the Chungcheongbuk-do Party established in accordance with the Political Parties Act.

B. On May 31, 2006, the Chungcheongbuk-do Party recruited candidates for the local election of the head of the Cheongbuk-do, which was enforced on May 31, 2006, and three persons including the applicants filed an application for recommendation of candidates for the local election of the Respondent.

C. With the consent of the above three persons, the Chungcheongbuk-do Party decided the candidates for the petition group as strategic service in accordance with the party constitution.

D. As a result of the first ballot, the Gongcheon-do Committee on Official Election of the Chungcheongbuk-do (hereinafter referred to as the “Do Party Gongcheon-do Committee”) established the candidates for 1 and 2 via the first ballot, and decided to conduct the competition if there is no candidate who obtains 2/3 or more votes from the second ballot. As a result of the second ballot, two candidates, including the applicant, were decided as candidates for 1 and 2, and the applicant was recommended as candidates for 10 out of the 14 official election examiners (hereinafter referred to as “the 14 official election decision”).

E. Thereafter, on April 18, 2006, the Steering Committee of the Chungcheongbuk-do (hereinafter “Operational Committee of the Do”) conducted a resolution on the decision of the 15th Gong100, among 26 operational members, and 10 members opposed to the decision of the 1th Gong1000 (hereinafter “Operational Committee”).

F. Accordingly, the Do party operation committee requested reconsideration on the Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party. On the same day, Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do party Do

2. The parties' assertion

The applicant asserts that the Constitution and the Political Parties Act shall be democratic in recommending a candidate for public office of a political party (hereinafter referred to as the "public office"), and that the decision on operation was not in compliance with democratic procedures and did not meet the quorum. Moreover, the organization having the right to request the re-determination of the result of the examination of the Do party's Do party's Do party's Do party's Do party's Do party's 2,000 Do Do Do 1 has a temporary position to obtain the highest decision on the 1,000 Do 1 through the resolution of the Do party's Do 1,000 Do 1, and that the Do 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 2,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,000 Do 2,000 Do 1,000 Do 1,000.

3. Determination

(a) Provisions pertaining to the good offices;

(1) Article 8(2) of the Constitution provides that "a political party shall be its purpose, organization, and activities, and shall have an organization necessary to participate in the formation of the people's political will." Accordingly, Article 31 of the Political Parties Act provides that "the recommendation of a candidate for election of a political party shall be democratic as to the recommendation of a candidate for public office," and Article 47 of the Public Official Election Act provides that "If a political party recommends a candidate, the recommendation of a candidate for election of a political party shall be made democratic procedure shall be followed." This is a provision on democracy in a democratic state that the political party should have in place, and where the organization or activities of a political party violate such democratic principle, its existence shall not be allowed (Article 8(4) of the Constitution). Therefore, if the success of a political party violates such provision, its validity shall not be recognized.

(2) According to the regulations on candidates for public office and regulations on candidates for public office (hereinafter referred to as the " those on candidates for public office") and the regulations on candidates for public office (hereinafter referred to as the " those regulations"), the Central Party and City/Do 2 shall respectively establish the committee for recommendation of candidates for public office (Article 47 (1)), and the matters examined by the Central Party and City/Do 2 shall be determined by the resolution of the highest committee for public office after the resolution of the highest committee for public office, but the highest committee for public office shall have the right to demand reconsideration (Article 47 (4)), and the highest committee for public office shall be decided upon by the 30,000 if the candidates for public office were to be recommended by the committee for public office and the committee for examination of candidates for public office (Article 47 (5)). The committee for examination of candidates for public office and the committee for examination of candidates for public office shall have the right to request reconsideration, notwithstanding the above provisions on 30,000

B. Determination on an application seeking confirmation that the candidate is a candidate to obtain a resolution of the Do Party Operation Committee

The applicant has made a dissenting decision on the first Gongcheon decision. Since the decision on the operation by the Do governor was made by 15 members who do not constitute a majority among the 40 members of the Do party operation committee, the applicant himself/herself is in the position of the candidate subject to the resolution by the Do operation committee on the first Do operation decision. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that he/she is 40 members of the Do party operation committee, and that the Do operation committee has already made a dissenting decision, the above argument by the applicant is without merit.

C. Whether a request for reconsideration of the City/Do party's contribution to the City/Do party operation is legitimate

Korea Civil Party shall have a committee for examination of candidates for public office. Members who have applied for the invitation of candidates for public office cannot participate in the meeting of the committee for examination of candidates for public office, as well as the highest committee members who have applied for the recommendation of candidates for public office cannot participate in the meeting of the committee for examination of the relevant area. The decision of candidates for Korea Civil Party is determined by the committee for examination of candidates for public office through the examination of the Do Civil Party and the decision of the committee for examination of candidates for public office by the highest committee for the first time. If the highest committee requests the reconsideration of candidates, the organization which is examined according to the request for reconsideration of candidates for public office is not the one for the operation of the committee for public office, but rather the one which is the one for the final decision of the committee for examination of candidates for public office and the one for which the highest committee for examination of candidates for public office is decided by the committee for examination of candidates for public office and the one for which the final decision of the committee for examination of candidates for public office is decided by the committee for examination of candidates for public office.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the highest committee's right to request the reconsideration of the result of the examination of the Do party.

In addition, if the political party does not necessarily require the competition by the method of recommending candidates, and the strategic competition is made through democratic procedures, it shall be deemed that the competition is the same as the competition. In this case, the Public Official Election Act stipulates that the candidate who is a candidate for the competition can not be registered as a candidate in the same constituency of the election in question (Article 57-2 of the Act) and that the candidate who is not elected as a candidate for the competition can not be registered as a candidate in the same constituency of the election in question (Article 57-2 of the Act). Thus, if the candidate is elected by the method of strategic competition, it is reasonable that the candidate who is elected as a candidate should be returned to the result of the competition, and as long as the inappropriate candidate is decided as a result of the competition, or there is a defect in violation of the procedure in the process of public administration examination, only the competition may not appeal the strategic competition decision itself by asserting that only the candidate is a democratic procedure.

However, in this case, the Do Party decided to elect candidates for the Do Party by means of strategic success, after obtaining the consent of each candidate, and accordingly, the Do Party Do Party Do Party decided to select candidates for the Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party as a candidate. Since the Do Party Do Party Do Party decided to oppose this decision, the Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party did not obtain the approval of the Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party, despite its highest decision on the result of the examination of the Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party, it is required to re-examine it on the ground that the Do Party Do Party Do Party did not obtain the approval of the Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party Do Party , and it is against the Constitution and regulations of the party Do Party Do Party Do Party.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, an application for the Respondent's Respondent's application for the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent is accepted within the above scope of grounds, and the remaining application for the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent and the application for the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent are dismissed as it is without merit, and

Judges Kim Jong-jin et al. (Presiding Judge)