206Na7823 Confirmation of the chairman of the board of directors

A person shall be appointed.

The Daegu Regional Headquarters of the National Taxi Industry Trade Union 00 ○ Branch Association

Daegu District Court Decision 2005Gahap11637 Delivered on August 16, 2006

March 26, 2007

April 12, 2007

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant confirmed that the elected person for the election of the chairman of the ○○ Sub-council, which was held by the defendant on March 18, 2005, is the plaintiff.

The re-election of the ○○ sub-council chairman held on April 7, 2005 confirms that the re-election is null and void.

2. Purport of appeal

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8 through 19, 22, 23, and 24 (including the number).

A. The status of a party (1) The National taxi industry trade union (hereinafter “National taxi trade union”) is the total of nationwide unit labor groups comprised of workers engaged in nationwide taxi transport business and related industries, and the branches of City/Do regional headquarters, regional headquarters, regional headquarters, and each workplace unit are established under its jurisdiction for smooth performance of affairs and efficient activities of the union. The regulations, its affiliated organizations operation regulations, and election management regulations, etc. are set out in order to regulate the organization and operation of the union. (2) The defendant is registered with the National taxi trade union on June 14, 200, while serving as a unit trade union consisting of employees of the Daegu (hereinafter address omitted) as a unit trade union consisting of the employees of the ○○○ corporation located in Daegu (hereinafter “Seoul”) and thereafter registered with the National taxi trade union, and thereafter regulates its organization and operation in accordance with the regulations and its affiliated organizations. The plaintiff is the union member of the defendant's headquarters.

(b) Conduct of election of the chairperson of the branch;

In the Defendant’s extraordinary general meeting held on March 18, 2005, the Plaintiff and Nonparty B registered as a candidate for the election of the chairperson of the branch of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant election”). The Plaintiff and Nonparty B registered as a candidate for the election of the chairperson of the branch of the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant election”), 57 voters vote by 54 voters, and 3 voters vote by 28 votes and 26 voters, the Plaintiff was decided as the elected person of the branch, and the Plaintiff was decided as the elected person of the president of the local election commission of the Defendant on the same day (hereinafter “the election commission”).

C. (1) However, B filed an objection on March 19, 2005 and on March 21, 2005, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not carry out an election campaign from March 18, 2005 to March 18, 2005, which was the election day, on the election day. (2) On March 21, 2005, the first election commission requested the Plaintiff to return the ballot papers of the instant election on the front line for deliberation, but the Plaintiff refused to return the ballot papers of the instant election (hereinafter “the election invalidation decision”), and notified the Plaintiff of the decision by content-certified mail on March 22, 2005.

(3) On March 29, 2005, the Defendant requested the president of the regional headquarters in Daegu District Headquarters in the Republic of Korea to hold a special meeting for the re-election of the president of the regional chapter, and the president of the National taxi union in the Daegu District Headquarters in the Republic of Korea announced the re-election of the president of the regional headquarters in the National taxi union. On March 30, 2005, upon notification of the approval of the special meeting of the national taxi union in the Republic of Korea, only B registered as a candidate for the re-election and registered as a candidate for the re-election (hereinafter “the re-election in this case”) on April 7, 2005, only four 51 voters among the 51 voters were voting, and as a result, B obtained the approval of the 31 votes, dissenting votes, 13 votes, and invalid votes and decided as the elected person, and the majority of the voters were decided as the elected person.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant's division is merely an affiliate organization of the nation's taxi labor union and is not an independent organization, and thus, is not a party's ability.

However, even if a trade union is a subordinate organization of a trade union, if it acts as an independent organization with its own rules and executive organs, it shall be deemed that it has the ability to be a party to a lawsuit as an unincorporated association (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu14937, Jul. 24, 1998; 2000Do4299, Feb. 23, 2001).

However, with respect to the organization and operation of branches, the rules of the National taxi labor union and its affiliated organizations operation rules are as follows.

Article 9 (Affiliated Organizations) (1) of the Regulations on the National taxi Labor Relations shall establish the following organizations under its jurisdiction for smooth performance of duties and efficient activities:

2. A local branch shall be established in each business establishment unit: Provided, That not more than 20 local branches may be operated in an integrated manner;

(2) The establishment, division, merger, dissolution, etc. of an organization under the control of the Association shall be governed by the resolution of each level of resolution institution prescribed by the regulations and regulations, and the matters concerning the organization and operation of the organization shall be prescribed separately by the regulations and regulations.

Article 9 (Agencies) (3) A local chapter shall have the following agencies:

1. General meetings or delegates (regular or temporary meetings);

2. Article 16 (Composition of Operating Committee) (1) The general meeting shall consist of its members as the highest resolution organ of the branch office;

(2) A conference for representatives shall be comprised of the representatives elected according to the allocation standards set by the conference for representatives or operating committees, and the term of office shall be by the day preceding the day of the next three-year general meeting: Provided, That a special election shall be held in cases of vacancies of at least 1/3 of the total number of representatives.

(3) The operating committee of a local chapter shall be comprised of not more than 20 members elected from the chairperson, the vice-chairperson, the secretary-general and the general meeting (the meeting of representatives).

Article 21 (Functions) (2) The steering committee of the sub-committee shall deliberate and resolve on the following matters:

1. Matters concerning the acceptance by general meetings and the execution of resolutions;

2. Not more than the omission;

Article 25 (Executives) (3) A local chapter shall have the following officers:

1. One chairperson of the branch office;

2. A small vice-chairperson of the branch;

Article 26 (Duties of Officers) (1) The duties of the representatives of various levels of affiliated organizations shall be as follows:

1. To represent the relevant organization and exercise overall control over all business affairs, and to convene and preside over various meetings;

Article 27 (Election of Officers) (1) An election of executives shall be as follows:

2. The officers of the branch shall be elected at the general meeting by direct, secret, and anonymous voting of the members: Provided, That the election of the officers may be elected at the general meeting which determines the period only by voting.

(2) The head of the collective bargaining headquarters may, if deemed necessary, delegate his/her right to negotiate to the representative of a branch or sub-branch: Provided, That the head of the collective bargaining headquarters shall notify an employer or an employers' association of the fact of delegation under Article 29 (3) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

Industrial actions by an organization under its control shall be conducted with the consent of a majority of union members registered in the name of union members directly, confidential and secret voting.

The judgment stand for the defendant is the branch of the National taxi labor union, but the defendant is organized with the employees of ○○ corporation as its members, and the organization, function, institution, collective bargaining right, industrial action, etc. of the branch of the National taxi labor union and its umbrella organization operation rules are specifically prescribed as above. Thus, it can be viewed as the defendant's independent rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2568 delivered on March 24, 2006). In addition, the defendant has a general assembly, a decision-making institution of the operating committee, a chairperson and a vice-chairperson, etc., and can conduct industrial action with collective bargaining right under the delegation of the National taxi labor union, and the defendant can be conducted with collective bargaining right under the delegation of the National taxi labor union. Thus, the defendant is an unincorporated association with the substance as an independent social organization, and the defendant'

B. As to the assertion that there is no benefit in confirmation, the Defendant asserts that there is no benefit in confirmation because, in light of the fact that B, who had received pressure support by holding the re-election in the special meeting held after the instant election, had been legally elected as the chairperson of the sub-committee, and that the special meeting has the authority to recommend the appointment of officers and to resolve the non-Confidence, such re-election result can be deemed as ratified and non-Confidence with the decision on the validity of election in the election of the pre-election, and thus, the Plaintiff may be deemed as non-Confidence. Therefore, the claim seeking confirmation that the elected person of the instant election held before the re

On the other hand, the re-election in this case is based on the premise that the decision to invalidate the election of the elected party is valid, and if the decision to invalidate the election is null and void, the re-election in this case is null and void due to lack of the requirements, and it cannot be deemed that there was a resolution of the special meeting which approves the validity of the election and the non-Confidence of the plaintiff, based on the result of the re-election conducted without being registered as a candidate by the plaintiff at the special meeting which did not consider the confirmation of the above decision to invalidate the election as a candidate and the non-Confidence of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is legally entitled to claim the confirmation that the elected party of the election in this case is the plaintiff, while disputing the validity of the above decision

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff asserted by the parties (1) (1) that ① the plaintiff made a call to the members on the election day is merely a request for the participation of the members in the voting, and it is not proper to support him. ② The plaintiff arbitrarily opened a ballot box sealed after the plaintiff's notice of election was given to the members, and replaced the ballot paper, and the chairman caused B to verify B's ballot paper without attendance by other related parties. Thus, the plaintiff did not take a ballot paper with the consent of the chairman of the election management committee to leave the ballot paper to the superior organization and did not interfere with the election affairs. Thus, the plaintiff's refusal of return of the ballot paper and the decision of invalidation of election on the election day is invalid because the elected person of the election of this case is the plaintiff, and therefore, the decision of invalidation of election on the election day of this case is invalid because it was conducted by paying 10,000 won to the election participants on the basis of such decision of invalidation of election, and thus, the plaintiff voluntarily rejected the decision of invalidation of election management regulations on the election day of this case, but did not interfere with the election management committee's (2).

B. The following facts are acknowledged as follows: Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 9-8, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 9-7-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-9-2, Eul evidence 20, Eul evidence 21-1, 26-2, Eul evidence 9-7, Eul evidence 9-2, Eul evidence 9-2, and Eul evidence 9-2, Eul evidence 9-9-2, and evidence 9-2's testimony at the court of first instance, and the whole purport of the oral argument at the court of first instance. Contrary to this, some of Gap evidence 9-7, Eul evidence 9-2 are not believed, and there is no other counter-proof. (a) The defendant's election management regulations related to the objection are as follows.

Article 23 (Period of Election Campaign) The period of election campaign shall be from the registration of candidate to the day before the voting day.

Article 27 (Prohibited Matters) Any candidate and election campaign worker shall not commit any of the following acts in connection with the election during the election campaign period:

1. Obstructing an employer or a member from exercising his/her rights by receiving support, other than an employer, or by violence, intimidation, kidnapping, etc.;

2. An act of offering entertainment against candidacys beyond an ordinary sense, or money or goods, or an ordinary sense;

3. Receiving signatures or seals of representatives or members for an election campaign;

4. Obstructing other election affairs determined by the election commission.

Article 34 (Decision on Elected Persons) (1) The following person shall be decided as the elected person:

1. Officers shall determine the person who has obtained the vote of a majority of incumbent persons and the majority of voters as the elected person: Provided, That in cases where there is no elected person in the first voting, the second voting shall be conducted for the lowest number of voters and the next braille, and the person who has the highest number of voters shall be decided as the elected person, but where there is no elected person in the second voting, the third voting shall be conducted with a period of 7 days fixed;

Article 35 (Filing and Handling Objections) (1) Any candidate or elector who has an objection to the result of an election may file an objection in writing with him/her along with evidential documents on the election campaign, within three days after the election ends.

(2) Upon receipt of an objection under the preceding paragraph, the captain shall examine and decide such objection, and notify in writing the appellant within seven days.

(3) A decision on the invalidation of an election or election due to an objection shall be made with the consent of at least 2/3 of all incumbent members.

In addition to the objections raised during the election period, the election commission may make a resolution on the invalidation of an election, invalidation of an election, or warning under paragraph (3) of the preceding Article when clear evidence of an illegal election is found in violation of Articles 26 and 27 of the same Regulation or during the election period.

Article 37 (Re-election) (1) Where the election commission of executive officers becomes final and conclusive, or the invalidation of election is notified, with respect to the election of executive officers, a cooperative or its umbrella organization shall make a public announcement for the re-election within seven days.

(2) When a local headquarters or a local headquarters has notified a local headquarters or local sub-chapter of the invalidation of election or the invalidation of election of a representative, with respect to the election of representatives, the local headquarters or sub-chapter shall publicly announce such fact within seven days.

Article 38 (Restriction on Eligibility of Candidates) A person whose election becomes effective due to an obvious illegal election under Article 36 restricts the eligibility as candidate for a reelection. (b) On March 18, 2005, the election day, the Plaintiff: (c) on the election day, the Plaintiff carried out an election campaign, such as “I am able to ask for a telephone from an elector, who is an elector, △△△△ and OO or more”; (d) upon being informed of this fact on the election day, ○○○○○ of the election election commission sent a higher attention to “I will not make a telephone to the Plaintiff and will not make a telephone to the Plaintiff,” and the election commission started voting from 15:00 to 00 to 15.

(C) In the process of the ballot counting of the instant election, the chairman of the election commission determined all the marks as valid marks, and put them in the ballot box. However, on March 19, 2005, B on the following election day confirmed the ballot papers in the presence of the chairman of the election commission, and raised an objection, while being above the ballot papers. When B confirms the ballot papers, other election management members, the Plaintiff, and the voting witnesses did not participate in the election. Meanwhile, after receiving the objection by B, the Plaintiff did not submit the ballot papers to the superior organization and did not submit them to the superior organization, the Plaintiff refused to return the ballot papers.

(D) On April 1, 2005, the election commission posted a notice to the effect that (10,000 won) would be paid to the members who attend the instant reelection, and that (10,000 won) would be present only to the members who attend the instant reelection.

(2) On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that B arbitrarily opened a ballot box sealed after the notice of election was given to the plaintiff, and that B replaced the ballot paper.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the Plaintiff’s refusal to return the Plaintiff’s ballot paper constitutes a ground for invalidation of the election.

Article 27 of the Election Management Regulations prohibits the act of interfering with the election affairs decided by the election commission during the election campaign period. While the time when the plaintiff refused to return the ballot papers after the election campaign period expires, the election commission under Article 36 of the Election Management Regulations provides that where the election is in violation of Article 27 during the election period, the election commission may resolve the invalidation of the election. Even if the elected person is decided as a result of the election, if the objection is decided, the decision on the elected person shall not become final, and the deliberation on the objection shall be completed, and the deliberation on the objection falls under the main election affairs of the election commission, and it ultimately obstructs the decision on the elected person. In light of the above, the "election period" under Article 36 of the above Regulations means "within the period until the decision on the elected person becomes final and conclusive, including the election campaign period, and it shall be interpreted that there are reasons prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 27 within that period, such as the invalidation of the election.

As seen earlier, even though the Plaintiff demanded the return of the ballot paper in order to deliberate on the objection raised by B, the Plaintiff’s refusal of the return of the ballot paper must be deemed to interfere with the principal election affairs on the front line (it is essential to check the ballot paper to determine whether the front line was above the ballot paper, and the Plaintiff’s refusal of the return of the ballot paper is eventually impossible due to the Plaintiff’s refusal of the return of the ballot paper. As seen earlier, even if the measure of having B confirm the ballot paper without the presence of other related parties is inappropriate, such reason cannot be a justifiable reason for refusing the return of the ballot paper. Therefore, if the chairman of the front line is doubtful that there was an operation or replacement of the ballot paper or other wrongful act in the process of confirming the ballot paper to B as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s refusal of the return of the ballot paper rather than the return of the ballot paper, and the Plaintiff’s refusal of the return of the ballot paper constitutes a ground for invalidation of the Plaintiff’s election campaign (the Plaintiff’s refusal of the election).

In a case where a candidate, etc. participating in an election has a reason to violate the Acts and subordinate statutes in the election procedure, the election is not invalidated solely on the sole basis thereof, but where it is deemed that the freedom and fairness of the election, which is the basic ideology of the election, is considerably infringed and thereby has influenced the result of the election, as a result, the election and the decision on the winner on the basis thereof are invalid (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da11837, Dec. 26, 2003).

As to this case, since the Plaintiff requested support from three electors after the end of the election campaign period (hereinafter referred to as "illegal election campaign"), there are only two votes obtained from the Plaintiff as a result of the election in this case, and if it is assumed that one elector supported B has replaced his votes by the Plaintiff’s illegal election campaign, the number of votes obtained without the Plaintiff’s illegal election campaign and there are no majority of votes obtained, it can be deemed that the situation where the Plaintiff decided as the elected person by the Plaintiff’s illegal election campaign. If two of the electors supported B were to cast his vote by the Plaintiff by the illegal election campaign, the situation that the Plaintiff should have decided as the elected person cannot be deemed to have changed to the situation that the Plaintiff should have decided as the elected person, and if it is assumed that two of the electors were to have cast his vote by the Plaintiff by the illegal election campaign, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s unlawful election campaign and the result of the election campaign after the expiration of the election campaign period cannot be seen to have significantly affected the Plaintiff’s free election campaign’s freedom and the result of the election campaign that the Plaintiff’s unlawful election campaign was not unlawful.

(C) Therefore, in the election of this case, the decision to invalidate the election of the election of this case is legitimate and valid, and therefore, the plaintiff's request to confirm the elected person is without merit. (2) The judgment on the claim to invalidate the reelection is without merit.

As above, the decision of invalidation of election against the plaintiff in the election election commission is valid, there is a reason to invalidate the reelection as prescribed in Article 37 of the Election Management Regulations, and it is difficult to view that the provision of food to the voters in the reelection of this case is appropriate measures. However, in accordance with the official decision of the election commission to encourage the participation in the voting (if the voters do not exceed the majority, it shall not seriously criticize the measures to encourage the participation in the voting) in accordance with the official decision of the election commission to encourage the participation in the voting (if the voters do not go beyond the majority, it shall not be considered that the measures to encourage the participation in the voting are made to all the voters of the voting, and it shall not be deemed that the freedom and fairness of the election, which is the basic ideology of the election, have been seriously infringed, and the re-election of this case is valid, and there is no reason to deny the validity of the re-election of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for all reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed

Judges Maximum-type

Judges Suh Jeong-hee

Judges Park Jong-young