A. Whether a person who has fallen in an election for a National Assembly member in a local constituency has standing to sue a lawsuit claiming the validity of all elected National Assembly members (negative)

B. Whether it is possible to file an election lawsuit against the chairman of the National Election Commission under the National Election Commission Election Commission Act (negative)

A. Article 146 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act recognizes standing to sue for a political party or candidate who has an objection to the validity of election, and the candidate here refers to a candidate who has fallen in the relevant constituency, and a person who runs for a National Assembly member in a constituency other than a national candidate of a political party cannot be deemed to have standing to sue in a lawsuit that contests the validity of all elected National Assembly members.

B. Even if the above “A” lawsuit is deemed to have been filed as a kind of election lawsuit, there is no ground to dispute the validity of the election against the chairman of the National Election Commission under the National Election Commission Act, and such lawsuit cannot be deemed lawful.

Articles 145, 146 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 67No29 delivered on July 15, 1968 (No. 16 ② b. Supreme Court Decision 71No29 delivered on July 9, 1971 (No. 19 ② 1)

Plaintiff

National Election Commission Head of the National Election Commission (Attorney Kim Du-ok, Counsel for defendant

The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On March 25, 1992, the defendant confirmed that the decision to distribute the election to the national members, including Nonparty 1, etc. is null and void.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The facts of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as follows: (a) the Defendant decided to assign Nonparty 1, etc. to Nonparty 1, etc. as a member of the 14th National Assembly pursuant to Article 133 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act; (b) however, Article 41(1) of the Constitution explicitly stated that the National Assembly constitutes a member of the National Assembly elected by a secret election, but the National Assembly made a decision on the allocation of election to a national Assembly member of the Republic of Korea; and (c) such decision is null and void.

First of all, as to the plaintiff's eligibility as a party in this case, the lawsuit in this case cannot be seen as a lawsuit disputing the validity of the decision of election against all elected parties in the national territory in light of the plaintiff's purport of assertion. Article 146 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act recognizes the plaintiff's eligibility for a political party or candidate who has an objection to the validity of election. Here, the candidate's "candidate" means a candidate who has fallen from the relevant constituency, and the plaintiff is a candidate for a National Assembly member in the front city of the front city, which is not a national candidate of a political party, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff is qualified as a plaintiff disputing the validity of the election of a National Assembly member in the national territory (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da29 delivered on July 1

A. Even if the instant lawsuit is deemed to have been filed as a kind of election lawsuit, there is no ground to dispute the validity of the election against the chairman of the National Election Commission under the National Election Commission Act, and such lawsuit cannot be deemed lawful (see Supreme Court Decision 71No2 delivered on July 9, 1971).

In any case, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed unlawful, and thus dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho