(영문) 대법원 2016.8.24.선고 2015다241495 판결

1. 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 ground that it is recognized that the freedom and fairness of the election, which is the basic ideology of the election, has been substantially infringed and that the result of the election had influenced on the election, by interfering with the elector’s free decision due to a reason in contravention of such statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da11837, Dec. 26, 2003). Meanwhile, the term “where it is deemed that the result of the election had influenced on the election” refers to the case where it is deemed that the result of the election would have been different from that of the candidate, i.e., the result of the election, if there was no violation of the regulations on the election (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do35, Apr. 11, 201

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above legal principles and records: ① the Defendant’s organization has a general meeting, a representatives’ general meeting, and a general meeting; the representatives’ general meeting consists of all its members; while the standing committee consists of representatives elected by direct, secret, or anonymous voting; there is a difference in democratic legitimacy given to the members of each of the above organizations; ② The Defendant’s rules on the operation of the branch offices stipulate “matters concerning the election of executives” as one of the functions of the general meeting and representatives; ② there is no provision related to the operation of the standing committee; ② the Defendant’s rules on the appointment of representatives’ general meeting cannot be interpreted as meaning as meaning as “the matters concerning the acceptance of delegation of the general meeting, which is one of the functions of the standing committee, can be decided by the delegation of authority of the general meeting; ② the Defendant’s amendment of the regulations related to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and the regulations on the operation of the branch offices in this case can be deemed as a justifiable reason for the election of representatives’ general meeting.

3. Nevertheless, the lower court found that the instant election was procedural defect based on the resolution of the Standing Committee without the authority to decide the method of election for the head of a branch, but it is difficult to conclude that the instant election was considerably infringed upon the freedom and fairness of the instant election due to such procedural defect, or that the instant election was contrary to the principles of union democracy, and that the said resolution does not raise an objection against the said resolution of the Standing Committee, and that the election of the head of a branch pursuant to the said resolution can be deemed to have been cured due to the ratification of the said resolution of the Standing Committee on the ground that the procedural defect alone cannot be deemed to have affected the outcome of the instant election, and thus, it is difficult to determine that the instant election was invalidated. This is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the importance of procedural defect, influence of the election result, and ratification of changes in the method of election, thereby making it difficult to determine that the said procedural defect has affected the outcome of the election.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.