1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the above revocation is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was running along with C and D in an election of non-standing auditors conducted by the council of representatives on February 10, 2017 by the Defendant’s representative.

B. In the above election, 67 persons, who are all the registered representatives of the defendant, participated in the voting for election of 2 non-permanent auditors (hereinafter “the instant voting”), and cast two persons, including the plaintiff, among three candidates. The voting aid in the shape of the rectangular body (hereinafter “the instant voting aid”), which is removed from the voting booth, was put in the front section of the instant voting aid, and the front section of the instant voting aid, the front section of the voting aid, and the front section of the balloting aid, which are removed from the voting booth, were put in the ballot box, and then put in the ballot box.

C. The voting result (hereinafter referred to as the "the first voting result"), D candidate 48, C candidate 3, Plaintiff 35, and Table 2 of Nullity Table 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant dispute ballot paper"), were added up as the voting result (hereinafter referred to as the "the first voting result"), D candidate 48, C candidate 33, Plaintiff 35, and invalidation Table 2, and the chairman of the election management committee referred to as the "articles of association of the Defendant Union".

Pursuant to Article 118(1) and Article 105(1), D candidates and plaintiffs were announced as auditors.

However, immediately, the vice-chairperson of the Election Commission confirmed that the ballot paper of this case was put on the back of the balloting aid on which no one is dismissed, and then one of the representatives claimed the re-examination.

Therefore, after consultation with all members of the election commission, it recognized the dispute ballot paper of this case as the C candidate list.

Accordingly, the number of votes obtained by the plaintiff and C candidates was equal to 35 votes respectively, and the chairman of the election management committee decided the candidates for C who are the oldest in accordance with Articles 118(1) and 105(2) of the articles of incorporation as the auditor together with D candidates who are the largest number of votes.

C The fact that the candidate is more than the plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties.

However, the plaintiff did not comply with the above decision.