A. Whether an action seeking confirmation of invalidity of the decision on a winner’s election following the election of executive officers of an agricultural cooperative is a benefit in filing a lawsuit against an individual who won the election (negative)

B. Existence of interest in confirmation and court's ex officio determination

(c) Whether the validity of the ballot paper, in which a private person is omitted, where the ballot paper provides that a private person shall affix his/her private person on the ballot paper for the executive management guidelines of the unit agricultural cooperative

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a decision on a elected person by an executive officer elected by an agricultural cooperative with an agricultural cooperative, even if the judgment accepting such a claim was rendered, the judgment cannot be deemed to have been effective against the cooperative concerned. Therefore, the dispute between the parties surrounding the status of the head of the cooperative, which is determined according to the decision on the elected person, cannot be resolved fundamentally. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a benefit in confirming that a lawsuit against the elected person is filed against the agricultural cooperative.

B. Whether a lawsuit is illegal as there is no interest in its confirmation, the court should decide ex officio, regardless of the party's assertion.

C. One of the reasons for invalid voting in the officer election regulations of a unit agricultural cooperative provides that "where a person does not use a small-scale ballot paper," the voting manager in the officer election management guidelines provides that he/she shall confirm that he/she is the elector himself/herself and affix his/her private seal in the prescribed column at the time of issuing the ballot paper, the provision on private seal by the voting manager shall be an effective provision on the voting prescribed as an essential procedure in the voting procedure, not a simple decoration provision, and therefore, even if the ballot paper is printed in the fixed format at the time of voting and the serial number is stated in the serial number column, and the seal of the chairman of the Election Commission

(a)Article 228(a) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 41 and 46(b) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act; Articles 124 and 265 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Da2425 delivered on September 14, 1982 (Gong1982,928) (Gong14058 delivered on June 25, 1991) (Gong1991, 1998).B. Supreme Court Decision 91Da12905 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2156) (Gong174 delivered on July 12, 1991).

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant] Han River Agricultural Cooperatives et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Na5367 delivered on December 28, 1990

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 2 is reversed, and the part against the same Defendant in the first instance judgment is revoked.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant 2 is dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Taegang Agricultural Cooperatives is dismissed.

All of the costs of the lawsuit against Defendant 2 and the costs of the appeal against Defendant Gangseo-gu Agricultural Cooperatives are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. First, prior to determining the grounds of appeal, we examine whether the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant 2 is lawful or not.

According to the records, in the election of the chief executive officer of the association of this case, which was instituted against Defendant Han River Agricultural Cooperatives and Defendant 2, etc., the plaintiff argued that the majority winner was the plaintiff, and that the decision of the defendant 2 should be invalidated as the elected person of the above head of the association, by erroneously treating the valid mark against the plaintiff as invalid, and deciding the defendant as the winning person is invalid.

However, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the decision of a elected person due to the election of executives of an organization such as agricultural cooperatives, even if the judgment citing such a claim was rendered, it cannot be deemed that the decision's effect extends to the association concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dispute between the parties surrounding the status of the head of the association determined according to the decision of the elected person cannot be resolved fundamentally. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a benefit in confirmation against the elected person, unless it is to file a lawsuit against the association that decided the elected person (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da12905 delivered on July 12, 19

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no interest in confirmation, and this is an ex officio investigation, and the court should have judged ex officio regardless of the party's assertion, and the court below and the first instance court's deliberation and determination on the merits are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation, which is a requirement for litigation of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below as

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal as to Defendant Tae River Agricultural Cooperatives

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although Article 21 (1) 6 of the Annex 1 to the Articles of Incorporation of the Agricultural Cooperative (A evidence No. 3; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the instant unit agricultural cooperative's articles of association provides that "the ballot papers put in two or more columns" shall be invalid, the court below held that three ballot papers listed in the attached Table 2 of the judgment below are marked on the plaintiff's column and their upper part, but the remaining one ballot paper marked most clearly above is marked on the plaintiff's column and its upper part, but it can be recognized that the upper part of the above non-party's column and the upper part of the non-party's column are above the middle part of the above non-party's column, and the above attached Form 2's ballot papers constitute invalid ballot papers as provided in Article 21 (1) 6 of the above regulations and the executive guidelines for the election of executives of the instant agricultural cooperative's association (A. 2; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the official seal of the manager of the voting can be found to be invalid and invalid as one of the above ballot paper.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rules or incomplete deliberation like the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 is reversed, and the decision of the court of first instance on this part is rendered directly by the members of the party under Article 407 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part is also unlawful as seen above, the part against the same defendant among the lawsuit in the judgment of first instance is revoked, and the part against the same defendant among the lawsuit in this case is dismissed, and the plaintiff's appeal against Defendant 2 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against Defendant 2 and the costs of appeal against Defendant GGGGGG are

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)