The validity of a resolution to select a party-recommended candidate from the head of Gwangju Metropolitan City, 2006Kahap941

Land Price Disposition

Anti-00

Gwangju Metropolitan City

Law Firm Eul, Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

100 Corresses

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Youngdo-dong

(2) the representative;

Attorney Choi Young-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant

May 1, 2006

1. Subject to the condition that the applicant deposits gold KRW 100,00,000 as security. (a) With respect to the simultaneous local elections of KRW 4 times 2006, the resolution made by the respondent at the Special Committee on Qualification of Candidates for Public Office held on April 3, 2006 to recommend 00 as candidates to the head of Gwangju Metropolitan City North Korea, and each effect shall be suspended until the judgment on the merits as to each nullity between the above parties is rendered at the representative group held on April 17, 2006.

B. The applicant may submit a document concluding a payment guarantee entrustment agreement with the above amount as the insured amount.

2. The applicant's remaining applications are dismissed.

3. Litigation costs shall be borne by the respondent.

The respondent is eligible for a candidate for public office held on April 3, 2006 with respect to the simultaneous local elections of the fourth local elections of 2006.

Resolution that the special committee recommend 00 persons sent to the head of Gwangju Metropolitan City North Korea as candidates for the special committee; and

The effect of each resolution to accept it at the meeting of the delegation held on April 17, 2006 shall be suspended.

1. Basic facts

In full view of the purport of the entire examination of the records of this case, the following facts are substantiated.

A. The respondent is a political party established on the basis of Article 8 of the Constitution and the Political Parties Act, and the applicant, as a party member of the respondent, applied to the respondent for a candidate for the head of the north-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant constituency”) for concurrent local elections in 2006.

B. On March 23, 2006, the respondent held the 11th Special Committee on the Qualification of Candidates for Public Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Committee") to recommend candidates for the election of the instant constituency (hereinafter referred to as "official candidates"), and decided to designate a person most suitable for the respondent among the respondent of the instant constituency as a preliminary candidate in the public opinion poll method (1,000 persons in each of the relevant one institution and telephone interview method, and 1,000 persons in each sampling area of the relevant electorate), and to conduct a public opinion poll at the support level of the human resources selected in the 1th stage and the human resources selected in the 1th stage and the human resources who are deemed to be the most most competitive, as the result of the other party belonging to the other party, if the base is not available, the respondent shall be designated as the strategic public zone (one institution telephone interview method of the relevant electorate, sample number number 1,000 persons in each region of the relevant electorate, etc.). As a result, the applicant conducted the 1th stage public opinion.

C. On March 16, 2006, the respondent conducted a public opinion poll on the basis of the comparison of 33.6%, 00%, 200%, 00%, and 59.8%, 19.0%, 33.6%, 200%, 200%, and 30%, 20%, and 10%, which are the applicants. However, around March 16, 2006, the respondent had already declared the candidate recruitment in the Gwangju Metropolitan City, which is not the instant constituency, and had already been registered as a preliminary candidate at the election commission of Gwangju Metropolitan City (No. A. 8 and 12 evidence).

D. On March 30, 2006, the respondent held the 13th Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on March 30, 2006 and designated the instant constituency as a strategic vacant zone on the grounds that the applicant was not the most competitive candidate than Kim 00 as the result of the said public opinion poll. On April 3, 2006, the respondent held the 14th Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy and passed a resolution to select 00 as a candidate for the recommendation of a political party in the instant constituency.

E. On April 8, 2006, the next open party of Korea passed a resolution of selecting 00 candidates for the recommendation of a political party of the instant constituency through its competition lines, and announced it. The respondent held the 39th conference on April 17, 2006, regardless of the result of the above official election of the open party, and made a resolution of which the 14th resolution was passed as it is, regardless of the result of the above official election of the open party.

F. Meanwhile, Article 97-2 of the party constitution of the respondent provides that, in principle, all candidates for public office shall be elected in accordance with democratic procedures, including raising awareness, and that, in cases where side effects, such as confusion, high cost, and division of party organizations after competition, are anticipated, and where considerable reasons, such as entry of outside personnel, women, young people and political persons, and areas requiring consideration on election strategies, etc. exist, it may vary by resolution of the Central Committee.

2. Determination as to the main defense of this case

The respondent asserts that the action of the political party, "Gongcheon", is unlawful since it is a political act as a decision within the political party according to the freedom of political party activities guaranteed by the Constitution, and it is not a subject of judicial review since it does not relate to the specific rights and obligations of the applicant.

On the other hand, Article 8 (1) of the Constitution provides that "the establishment of a political party shall be free, a multiple party system shall be guaranteed," and Article 8 (3) provides that "political parties shall be protected by the State as prescribed by Act, and the State may provide funds necessary for the operation of a political party as prescribed by Act." In addition, Article 8 (2) of the Constitution provides that "political parties shall be democratic and democratic and shall have an organization necessary to participate in the formation of a political party." Article 8 (4) of the Constitution provides that "If the purpose or activities of a political party violate the basic democratic order, the Government may file a lawsuit against the Constitutional Court, and the political party shall be dissolved by a trial of the Constitutional Court," and Article 31 of the Political Parties Act provides that "the recommendation of candidates for election of a political party shall be democratic," and Article 47 (1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "If a political party recommends a candidate pursuant to the provisions of Article 47 (1) of the Public Official Election Act."

In light of the above provisions, a political party is a voluntary organization of the people with the aim of promoting responsible political assertions or policies for the benefit of the people and participating in the formation of the political will of the people by recommending or supporting candidates for public office (Article 2 of the Political Parties Act). The freedom of political party activities at the same time, which is a prerequisite for democracy under today's parliamentary democracy, functions as an essential element for political process and political activities under today's parliamentary democracy. However, the freedom of political party activities is not neglected in guaranteeing it. However, even if a political party is protected more specifically than a general organization by the Constitution and the Political Parties Act, the Political Parties Act, and the Political Fund Act, etc., the recommendation of a candidate for various elections of a political party is a part that requires the formation of the people's political will and has a public nature that is an extension of the national political process of public office election. Therefore, the respondent's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits of the motion

In light of the above facts, the first stage public opinion poll was conducted on the election district of this case by the applicant who had first conducted the first stage public opinion poll on the ground that the applicant did not move from the support level of the Kim Jae-pung's opinion poll conducted on April 17, 2006. In reviewing the competitiveness with the reasonable candidate, it would be the comparison of the person who was planned to go out in the relevant election district or who had already registered as the preliminary candidate. However, prior to the decision of the above strategic vacant area, prior to the decision of the above strategic vacant area, the Minister of Public Officials and Security declared the candidate going out in the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor, which was not the election district of this case, and decided to select the candidate as the candidate by 40 days prior to the decision of the strategic vacant area of this case as the preliminary candidate of the Gwangju metropolitan metropolitan area, and then, it would be remarkably unfair in the voting district of this case to select the candidate as a candidate by the representative of the respondent on April 17, 2006.

In addition, according to Article 97-2 of the party constitution of the respondent when the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy adopts a resolution to nominate a candidate as a candidate for the recommendation of the political party in the constituency in this case, unlike the invitation of candidate through public opinion poll competition, if the other candidate is recruited on a strategic basis differently from the invitation of candidate through public opinion poll competition, there is considerable reason for it. However, in this case where there is no assertion and explanation from the respondent as to the fact that there is considerable reason for the resolution that the respondent to recommend a candidate for the recommendation of the political party in the constituency in this case (it is difficult to see that there is the above explanation solely on the ground that Jeonranam-do Vice-Governor is the Vice-Governor). The resolution to select a candidate for a political party 00 is in violation of the party constitution regulations set by the respondent and thus, the applicant has the right to seek suspension of the validity of the above decision, and as long as the respondent selects a candidate as a candidate for the political party in this case, the respondent's appointment of a candidate for the party in this case cannot be preserved as a candidate.

Meanwhile, the respondent argues that even if the applicant has submitted to the respondent an application for public opinion poll and written consent for recommending candidates for the head of the basic local government, the filing of the application of this case without objection can not be permitted against the principle of good faith, even though the applicant consented to accept the application without objection. Thus, according to the records of this case, the applicant's special election under the respondent and the central election commission on March 23, 2006 "(1) who wishes to become a public official candidate for the 4th regional election, and the applicant's special election is not a candidate for the 100th regional election under the 10th regional election, which was decided on March 23, 2006, and the applicant's special election under the 1,000 Incheon Metropolitan City's strategic election plan under the 10th regional election commission's 1,000 local election commission's 1,000 local election commission's 3,000 local election commission's 1,000 local election commission's 2.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the applicant's request shall be accepted within the scope of suspending the validity of each resolution made between the above parties until the judgment on the nullity of each resolution is rendered on the purport of the request, subject to the offer of security, and the remaining applications shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant

Judges Seo-ho et al.

Judge Lee Jin-hoon