(a) Whether the judge in receipt of the challenge has become unable to perform his/her duties on the case;

(b) Whether it becomes a ground for an application for challenge to partially revoke the adoption of evidence;

(a) Where the judge in receipt of the application for challenge ceases to perform his/her duties on the case, the application for challenge shall lose its objective and shall cause no benefit in the application for challenge;

B. The decision to accept evidence is subject to the full power of the competent full bench, and the reason why the full bench partially revokes the adoption of evidence upon request cannot be deemed to constitute a case where it is difficult to expect the fairness of the trial to the judges constituting the full bench. Thus, the motion to challenge the above judges is without merit.

Article 39 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Order 85Ma580 Dated October 10, 1985 (Gong1986,228) dated October 2, 1988 (Gong1988,1419)

Applicant

The motion for challenge against Nonparty 1 shall be dismissed.

Justices Lee Jong-soo, Kim Jong-soo, and Lee Jong-soo are dismissed, respectively.

1. We examine the motion for challenge against Nonparty 1.

If a judge to whom an application for challenge was filed ceases to perform his duties on the case, the application for challenge shall lose its purpose and thereby becomes without benefit to the application for challenge (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 88Ma580, Oct. 2, 198; Supreme Court Order 85Ma580, Oct. 10, 198; etc.). Since it is obvious fact that Justice Lee Jong-soo's failure to perform his duties on the case for which a lawsuit was brought against party members, the application for challenge shall become illegal.

2. We examine the grounds for challenge against Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4.

The reason for the motion for challenge against the above judges is, in short, summary, the applicant's complaint against the decision on whether to accept evidence in the above election lawsuit, and the decision on whether to accept evidence is subject to the full power of the competent court, and the reason for the revocation of part of the evidence upon the request of the applicant cannot be said to constitute a case where it is difficult to expect the fairness of the trial to the judges constituting the relevant court. Thus, the motion for challenge against the above judges is without merit.

3. Therefore, the motion for challenge against Nonparty 1 is dismissed. The motion for challenge against Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)