1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The defendant is the council of occupants' representatives consisting of representatives from each Dong of Seo-gu Daejeon apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and the plaintiff is the resident of this case, who was a candidate for the election of the 7th chairperson of the defendant.

On March 3, 2015, the Defendant’s election of the 7th president and the auditor (hereinafter “instant election”) was held on March 3, 2015, and the Plaintiff and C were selected as the candidates for the chairman of each Defendant.

As a result of the ballot counting of the instant election, the Plaintiff obtained 863 electors and 149 voters among 215 voters, and won the Defendant’s president.

On March 10, 2015, the election commission affiliated with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “election commission”) announced that the Plaintiff’s election is invalidated on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was elected to the Defendant Chairperson at the instant election campaign, conducted a door-to-door visit for an election campaign during the election campaign period under Article 19(7) of the Election Commission Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “election commission’s decision to invalidate the instant election”).

The statutes related to this case, the management rules of apartments of this case and the regulations of the election commission are as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including Serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the decision to invalidate the election of this case by the election commission of this case is invalid for the following reasons.

Under the instant apartment management rules, the election commission is not authorized to make a decision on the invalidation of election due to the violation of the election management regulations.

The plaintiff did not have a door-to-door visit during the election campaign of this case, and the election commission decided the invalidation of the election of this case without undergoing any verification procedure as to whether the plaintiff had a door-to-door visit.

Judgment

In full view of the evidence No. 10, No. 10, and No. 1, No. 6, and No. 7 of the election commission’s decision to invalidate the election, the apartment management rules of this case are as follows.