[1] The meaning of "the facts violating the provisions on election" and "the time deemed to have influenced the result of the election" in the election lawsuit under Articles 222 and 224 of the Public Official Election Act which are the grounds for invalidation of election

[2] The meaning of "false facts" under Article 250 (1) of the Public Official Election Act and the standard for determining which expression constitutes false facts

[3] Whether an error in the contents of the decision on the winner can be considered as a ground for invalidation of the election (negative)

[1] An election lawsuit under Articles 222 and 224 of the Public Official Election Act refers to a lawsuit seeking the invalidation of all or part of an election, which is a collective act, when it is recognized that there has been a violation of the regulations on election in the series of elections and that the result of the election has influenced the result of the election. The term “fact that violates the regulations on election” which is a ground of invalidation in such a election lawsuit refers to a case where the election commission, the subject of the election management, has violated the regulations on the management and execution of election affairs, and where there is a separate defect in the management and execution of election affairs which may be attributable to responsibility, such as implied or neglect without taking proper corrective measures against an illegal act in the election process by a third party, such as a candidate, but it includes other cases where it is recognized that the freedom and fairness of election, which is the basic ideology of the election, has been significantly impeded because the elector could not vote freely by free judgment due to an illegal act in the election process by a third party such as a candidate, etc.

[2] “False fact” under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act means a matter that is inconsistent with the truth, and that is sufficient enough that the elector can have the accuracy of the candidate’s decision. However, in a case where the material part is consistent with the objective fact in light of the overall purport of the published fact, if the material part is inconsistent with the objective fact, it cannot be said that there is a false fact even if the detailed part is different from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression. Whether an expression of false fact is false should be determined based on the overall impression of the expression, on the premise of an ordinary method in which the general elector deals with the expression, by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the expression, objective content, ordinary meaning of the used words, method of linking the words, etc.

[3] Since a lawsuit seeking invalidation of an election is a dispute over the validity of an election, which is a collective act that covers various acts, such as the designation of an election day, preparation of an electoral registry, candidate registration, administration of administration, ballot counting, and decision on the winner, the error in the contents of the decision, i.e., the number of votes obtained or the illegality in the decision on the calculation

[1] Articles 22 and 224 of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Article 250 (1) of the Public Official Election Act / [3] Articles 222 and 224 of the Public Official Election Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da30 Decided August 20, 2004 (Gong2005Ha, 1160) Decided June 9, 2005 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1202 Decided May 14, 2015 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da26 Decided February 2, 2004

People's Party and one other (Law Firm Sol, Attorneys Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Election Commission Chairperson (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Nung-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Intervenor (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Jin-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

August 25, 2016

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. The costs of lawsuit including the part arising from supplementary participation are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On April 13, 2016, the election for National Assembly members in the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City constituency shall become invalid.

1. Basic facts

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 7 and the whole argument, the intervenor's 20th National Assembly member of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter "the election of this case") implemented on April 13, 2016 (hereinafter "the election of this case") recommended by the new party in the election of the 20th National Assembly member of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter "the election of this case") (hereinafter "the election of this case") shall have obtained the 42,271 mark, the 42,245 mark recommended by the plaintiff 2, and the 32,989 mark recommended by the plaintiff 2, the 32,989 mark recommended by the democratic party, and the 6,024 mark recommended by the non-party 2 candidate who is not affiliated with the non-party 1

2. On the assertion that the election is invalidated due to the publication of false facts

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) In addition, Nonparty 1, who was recommended by a democratic party, agreed to be a candidate group, and the democratic party and the justice party agreed to be a candidate group, but did not be a candidate grouped with the Plaintiff’s party that is another major party, and thus, it did not constitute “election campaign candidate”, even though the election campaign materials such as campaign posters, election campaign bulletins, and placards do not indicate “election campaign candidates” or “election campaign candidates” during the election campaign process, thereby publicly announcing false facts prohibited under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act.

(2) Even if Nonparty 1 stated, after the expression “the election campaign material” as “the election campaign material,” Nonparty 1’s expression as “the election campaign material,” the additionally stated expression is limited to the size and color of the expression “the election campaign material,” and as a whole, deemed as a “the election campaign candidate” in view of the overall size and color different. Even if the additionally stated expression should be combined, it was not agreed to grant the Plaintiff’s party and the single candidate. In addition, the instant election district did not have a recommendation of a defined party, and thus, it constitutes the publication of false facts.

(3) The Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Bupyeong-gu Election Commission (hereinafter “the election commission of this case”) attached a notice to the effect that it is impossible to use the expression “candidate for camping tickets” in addition to the campaign posters posted, and inserted such notice to the same effect in some election campaign bulletins and did not take active measures such as attaching a notice to the polling station or sending a notice to all households in the instant constituency, and thus, there is a defect in the management and execution of the election affairs.

(4) The act of publishing false facts by Nonparty 1, thereby making it impossible for voters to vote at a free judgment, thereby significantly impeding the freedom and fairness of election.

(5) The fact that the number of votes obtained by the Plaintiff 2 and the Intervenor is in violation of the above provisions regarding the election in the instant election, which is merely 26 table, has influenced the result of the instant election, and thus, the instant election is null and void.

B. Determination

(1) An election lawsuit under Articles 222 and 224 of the Public Official Election Act is a collective action and refers to a lawsuit invalidating all or part of an election when it is recognized that there has been a violation of the provisions on an election in the series of elections and that the result of the election has influenced the result of the election. The term “the fact that the election violation of the provisions on an election”, which is the grounds for invalidation, is basically a violation of the provisions on the management and execution of election affairs by the election commission, which is the subject of the election management, and a violation of the provisions on an election in the process of an election by a third party, including a candidate, without taking proper corrective measures, refers to the case where there is a separate defect in the management and execution of an election affairs which may be attributable to the responsibility of the elector, but it includes other cases where it is deemed that the freedom and fairness of the election, which is the basic ideology of the election, has been significantly impeded by free judgment by the elector due to an illegal act in the election process by a third party including a candidate.

(2) The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments or videos stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 through 11, 15 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14, respectively.

(1) In addition, on March 22, 2016, the Incheon Metropolitan City Party and the Incheon Metropolitan City Party of the Democratic Party entered into an agreement on three constituencies (infinite, infinite, infinite, in training, in middle, infinite, infinite, and infinite) in the 20th election of National Assembly members on March 22, 2016, to elect a single candidate with a light of public opinion poll, and in the remaining constituency, with the recommendation of each

② On March 25, 2016, the National Election Commission confirmed on March 25, 2016, that the use of the expression “candidate” in campaign posters, election campaign bulletins, etc., made by candidates registered in accordance with the agreement between the Incheon Metropolitan City Party and the Incheon Metropolitan City Party under the definition of the Incheon Metropolitan City Party, when there is a candidate recommended by another party in the relevant constituency, it did not violate Article 250 of the Public Official Election Act.

③ As to the question of Nonparty 1’s question as to whether to use the expression “the right party candidate” or “the right party candidate”, the instant election commission directed Nonparty 1 to use the word “the right party candidate” following the “right party candidate”.

④ Nonparty 1’s candidate stated, on the front page of a banner, campaign poster, election campaign bulletin, campaign bulletin, leaflet or a tape-recording machine installed in a campaign speech or interview vehicle, etc., the entire expression, including an additional expression, written, written as “the front right candidate + a justice party” or “the front right party justice party” (hereinafter referred to as “instant expression”).

⑤ On the other hand, on April 1, 2016, the Incheon District Court decided to the effect that, upon the recommendation of the Plaintiff’s Party, Nonparty 3, who registered the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City as a candidate for the election district, filed a provisional disposition against Nonparty 4 who registered the remaining-gu Incheon Metropolitan City as a candidate for the election district on the recommendation of a justice party, “Nonindicted 4 shall not remove the banner indicated as the confirmation of the candidate for the camping party and use the expression as the candidate for the

6. On April 2, 2016, the National Election Commission confirmed that, if the democratic party, the citizen party, and the justice party agree on the question of the Plaintiff’s Party, it cannot use the expression “the candidate for the ruling party” in the context of the candidate unification. The Incheon Metropolitan City Election Commission notified each political party of the contents of the questionnaire of the National Election Commission on the same day, the restriction on the use of the expression “the candidate for the ruling party”, and the method of correcting and supplementing existing expressions, and distributed the reported materials.

7) According to the guidance of the Incheon Metropolitan City Election Commission, Nonparty 1’s candidate added the instant expression or replaced it with the expression “a single candidate for a single candidate for a definition of a democratic political party”, which is indicated in the banner, the ticket, the election campaign agent, and the boiler, etc. by April 5, 2016.

8) The instant election campaign bulletin, which was inserted on the campaign poster of Nonparty 1’s campaign poster at the bottom of Nonparty 1’s campaign poster that was posted along with the campaign poster, refers to “a single candidate for a democratic party and for a defined party”. The instant election campaign bulletin additionally posted a notice stating that the expression “a candidate for a right party” is unusable, and posted the same notice to the same effect in a partial election campaign bulletin that was not sent by the time.

(3) “False fact” under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act means a matter that is inconsistent with the truth, and that is sufficient enough to have the elector make an accurate judgment on a candidate. However, in a case where the material part is consistent with the objective fact in light of the overall purport of the published fact, if the material part is inconsistent with the objective fact, it cannot be deemed a false fact even if there is a little exaggerated expression. Whether a certain expression is false or not should be determined on the basis of the overall increase provided to the elector in light of the overall purport of the expression, objective contents, ordinary meaning of the used words, method of linking the words, etc., on the basis of ordinary method in which the general elector deals with the expression (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1202, May 14, 2015).

First of all, the issue of determining whether the expression constitutes the publication of false facts is limited to the entire expression of this case or the part of the expression of this case’s “opportun democratic Party” among the expressions of this case. According to the respective descriptions or images of evidence Nos. 6 and 8, campaign posters, election campaign bulletins, diskettes, and partial banners are indicated as the size of the “opportun democratic Party Legislation” and their colors are different. However, according to the above evidence, the part of “opportun Democratic Party Legislation” is closely contrary to the part of “opportun Democratic Party” and intended in the form of distinguishing the expression of this case from other expressions indicated in the relevant medium, and the size of the word “opportun Democratic Party Legislation” is small to the extent that the size of the word “opportun Democratic Party” portion cannot be easily identified, and therefore, it appears that the entire expression of this case’s expression is separate from the size of the expression of this case’s expression, and thus, it appears that the entire expression of this case’s expression should not be accepted.

Next, we examine whether Nonparty 1’s act of publishing this case’s expression constitutes a publication of false facts. Since the political behavior of election solidarity or candidate unification repeatedly takes place in our election company, it can be seen that the general elector has received multiple political forces with regard to the expression “party candidate” through such historical experience as a candidate discharged through the political process of candidate unification, it cannot be deemed that the expression “party candidate” is merely a political investigation. However, “the right of camping” means a person or organization required in the ability to support the party party in advance, but it is difficult to recognize that only the party with the parliamentary seat is used as a word, and it is difficult to recognize that the expression in this case’s expression constitutes a “party candidate” as an expression “party candidate” and it is difficult to recognize that the expression in this case’s expression constitutes a “party candidate” as an expression of the “party candidate” as an expression of the “party candidate.” In full view of the fact that the expression in this case’s expression constitutes a specific one of the parties’ expression in the election.

In addition, the expression "short-party candidate" may vary not only from among the candidates who completed the candidate registration through competitive methods but also from those who wish to participate in the candidate registration or the political forces participating in the simplification before the candidate registration to the candidate paid with the intention of support. Thus, even if there is no candidate for a definition party, so long as the non-party 1 candidate is deemed to be a candidate who is jointly represented by the agreement between the democratic party and the justice party, the non-party 1 candidate's publication of the expression of this case cannot be deemed as an act of publishing false facts.

(4) The plaintiffs' assertion that there is a ground for invalidation of the election in this case on the premise that there was an illegal act, such as publication of false facts, is not correct, since the act of publishing false facts by the candidates for Nonparty 1

Even when it is assumed that the publication of the instant expression constitutes the publication of false facts, ① the instant election commission’s notification on April 2, 2016, following the decision of the Incheon District Court’s provisional disposition, and immediately on April 2, 2016, notified each political party, etc. of the restriction on the use of expression as the right to leave, and distributed news materials, and inserted a notice on the campaign posters and some election campaign bulletins that have not been issued, and Nonparty 1 deleted the expression as the right to leave from April 5, 2016, or replaced the expression as the “one candidate for the right to leave” by the announcement of the right to leave from April 5, 2016, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ major broadcasting and newspapers were not the one for the right to leave from the announcement of the candidate’s right to leave from the announcement of the candidate’s right to leave from the announcement of the candidate’s right to leave from the announcement of the candidate’s right to leave from the announcement of the candidate’s right to leave from 2016 days to the election campaign period.

3. As to the allegation that an election is invalidated due to a violation of the regulations on ballot counting

A. Whether there exists a ground for invalidation of an election due to a violation of the regulations on the classification of oil and invalid votes

The plaintiffs asserted that the election of this case is null and void because they were erroneous in the classification of the mark of the election of this case in the ballot counting process. Since the lawsuit for invalidation of an election is a dispute over the validity of the election, which is a collective act that covers various acts, such as the designation of election day, the preparation of the electoral register, the registration of candidate, the management of ballot counting, and the decision on the winner, the illegality of the decision in determining the number of votes obtained or the decision on the calculation of the number of votes obtained in detail cannot be deemed a ground for invalidation of an election (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do26, Feb. 2, 2004). The plaintiffs' above assertion is not correct without need

(b) Whether there exists a reason to invalidate an election due to temporary domicile and shipboard voting by a third party;

The plaintiffs found the voting place in which one person appears to have put one vote en bloc at the residence and voting place on the line, which was put in the ○○○ mark, and the voting place by the third party was invalid, but the voting place by the third party was recognized as valid votes, and thus, the election of this case is null and void. However, since there is no evidence to prove that the voting was held by the third party at the residence and shipboard voting place, the above argument by the plaintiffs is

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are not justified, and all of them are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing parties, including the part arising from the participation in the case. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)