1. Qualifications to be a defendant for an invalidation of election on the grounds of illegality in making a decision under the main sentence of Article 127 (1) of the former Election of National Assembly Members

2. Whether an outer envelope is sealed, but the outer envelope is not sealed, and whether it falls under Article 122 (1) 7 of the former Election of National Assembly Members Act for Postal Voting.

(Majority Opinion)

1. If the cause of a claim for an invalidation of election is based on the illegality of the decision as provided in the main sentence of Article 127 (1) of the former Election of National Assembly Members Act, a lawsuit for invalidation of election against the chairperson of the relevant election commission is legitimate pursuant to the proviso of Article 140 (1) of

2. In the exercise of the right to vote granted by the Constitution as a basic right of the people, it is natural to respect the elector’s will to the extent that it is not contrary to the election law and the ideology of the election. Thus, the provision that “unsealeded in vote by mail” under Article 122(1)7 of the Election Act, which provides invalid voting, does not indicate the sealing of the inner envelope containing the ballot paper, but it is just to interpret that it is pointed out that the outer envelope containing the above inner envelope is not sealed. Therefore, Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the Election Act provides that “in-house envelope” shall not be construed as pointing out Article 122(1)7 of the Election Act, and it is reasonable to interpret that the provision that “in-house envelope shall be sealed.”

(Minor Opinion)

1. If the cause of the claim is the number of votes obtained by the defendant Gap even though it was less than the plaintiff, and it is clear that the plaintiff Gap was determined as the elected person due to the error in the table of the constituency election commission, and that there is no objection to the election of the defendant Eul, the lawsuit for invalidation of the election shall be dismissed because the chairperson of the election commission has only the standing to be the defendant, and the plaintiff and Eul are not eligible to be the defendant, and the lawsuit for invalidation of the election is illegal and the defect is not correct, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Article 122(1) of the former Election of National Assembly Members Act refers to a vote which is not sealed in a vote by mail, which is provided as invalid one (7). Thus, if any one of the outer envelope is not sealed, if it is not sealed, a vote by mail contained in the outer envelope shall be deemed invalid.

Article 122(1) of the former Election of National Assembly Members Act (amended by Act No. 3359, Jan. 29, 1981); Article 50 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Election of National Assembly Members Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10198, Feb. 16, 1981)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Election Commission (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

In the election for the National Assembly member conducted in the first constituency of Chungcheong-do on February 27, 1973, the decision that the election commission of Chungcheong-do first election commission made Defendant 3 as the elected person shall become null and void.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be borne by the chairperson of the election commission of the first election commission, Chungcheongnam-do, Defendant Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Main Claim (the other party to the defendant, etc.);

In the election of National Assembly members conducted in the first constituency of Chungcheongnam-do on February 27, 1973, the election of Defendants 2 and 3 of the same Act shall be invalidated.

2. Preliminary claim (the chairman of the election commission in the first constituency, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do); and

In the election for the National Assembly member conducted in the first constituency of Chungcheongnam-do on February 27, 1973, the election for the 1,3 voting districts in the constituency of Chungcheongnam-do shall become invalid. The election for the 1,3 voting districts in the presidential election for the National Assembly member, 1,2 voting districts in the constituency of Dong, 1,2 voting districts, Ambassador 1,2 voting districts, deputygs, 1,2 voting districts, 1,2 voting districts, 4,2 voting districts, bank voting districts and 2

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

November 30, 1973

1. First of all, the decision shall be made on the main defense of the attorney-at-law of the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant chairperson") chairman of the election commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Fashion Committee") of the first election commission in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter referred to as the "principal election commission").

The plaintiff's representative asserts that the lawsuit for invalidation of the election in this case should be dismissed as an illegal lawsuit against the defendant, despite being the elected person as the defendant under the main sentence of Article 140 (1) of the Election of National Assembly Members Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Election Act"). Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit for invalidation of the plaintiff's election is clearly based on the plaintiff's own assertion that the ground for the plaintiff's lawsuit for invalidation of the election in this case is illegal under the main sentence of Article 127 (1) of the Election Act. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit for invalidation of the plaintiff's election in the chairperson of the defendant under the proviso of Article 140 (1) of the same Act is legitimate. Therefore, this defense cannot be

In addition, the plaintiff filed a claim for invalidation of election in this lawsuit and the conjunctive claim for invalidation of election day as the plaintiff's claim for invalidation of election day, in principle, the former claim shall be the defendant to the elected person. Since the latter's claim is the defendant's subjective and conjunctive merger of the two claims, since these two claims are the subjective and conjunctive consolidations of the so-called lawsuit, it should be dismissed as an illegal lawsuit. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion as the ground for invalidation of election is for illegality of the decision as provided in Article 127 (1) of the Election Act as shown in the exhibition. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion as the defendant's chairperson is the defendant in the claim for invalidation of election. Thus, in this case, in this case, the plaintiff's request for invalidation of election, the defendant's claim for invalidation of election day and the defendant's claim for invalidation of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim are the defendant's two claims. Thus, this safety claim based on the premise that the defendant's chairperson cannot become the defendant in this case's claim for invalidation of election can not be accepted.

2.The following points shall be examined:

First of all, in the election for the National Assembly member which was implemented on February 27, 1973 in the constituency of this case, two National Assembly members were elected in the order of candidates who obtained a majority of the valid votes in accordance with Article 16 (2) and the main sentence of Article 127 (1) of the Election Act to the claim for invalidation of election, and in the election for the National Assembly member which was implemented on February 27, 1973, the Committee recognized that, in the election for the National Assembly member, the number of valid votes of Defendant 2 (Recommendation for the Political Party) in the constituency of this case, 38,572 of the valid votes of Defendant 3 (Recommendation for the Democratic Unification Party) and 38,524 of the same Plaintiff (Recommendation for the Democratic Unification Party), the valid votes of Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 (Recommendation for the Civil Party) as 12,967 of the valid votes, and as a result, the Committee decided to seal the ballot papers in the order of 7 other parties without any dispute.

The difference in the number of votes between the plaintiff and the defendant 3 is due to the error in the ballot counting and the ballot counting of the committee and the 777 marks in the sealed outer envelope, among the postal votes arrived at the committee, which are not sealed, and the committee's measures that recognize the above as invalid are in violation of the election laws and are naturally effective, and if so, the plaintiff is to have been elected as a matter of course as to each candidate, so it is necessary to first put the envelope containing the inner envelope in the sealed outer envelope, and then put the envelope in the outer envelope which is not sealed, and then put it in the outer envelope which is not sealed, as well as the outer envelope which is not sealed, in violation of Article 122 (1) 7 of the Election Act, it is invalid to put the envelope in the outer ballot box which is not sealed, and then put it in the outer ballot envelope which is not sealed, and then put it in the outer ballot paper which is not sealed, and then invalid in the outer ballot envelope as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Election Act.

Article 21 of the Constitution gives citizens the right to vote for the ballot counting as one of the basic rights, and Article 76 (1) of the same Act opens the ballot counting boxes at the same time with the same ballot counting method, and the election of the National Assembly members is established directly, with the aim of stipulating the matters on the election as provided by the Constitution, and the Enforcement Decree of the Election Act also provides for the matters necessary for the enforcement of the ballot counting within the limit of the matters as provided by the election Act, and it shall not be interpreted in accordance with the upper law, even if it is interpreted that the ballot counting method should be carried out at the same time by opening the ballot counting box and the ballot counting method to ensure that the ballot counting method is not carried out by the witness at the same time, and it shall be considered that the ballot counting method is a measure to maintain the confidentiality of the election and prevent the election from being carried out by the witness without sealing the ballot counting method, and therefore, it shall be considered that the ballot counting method is not carried out without any justifiable reason by the competent election commission.

Therefore, in the exercise of the right of vote granted by the Constitution as a basic right of the people, it is natural to respect the elector's will to the extent that it is not contrary to the election law and the ideology of the election. Thus, the provision that "unsealeded in vote by mail" under Article 122 (1) 7 of the Election Act, which provides that invalid voting, does not indicate the sealing of the envelope containing the ballot paper, but it is just to interpret that the outer envelope containing the above inner envelope is not sealed. Therefore, the provision that "in-house envelope" shall be sealed under Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree, shall not be deemed to point out under Article 122 (1) 7 of the Election Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret this provision as the provision that "in-house envelope is sealed."

In this case, according to the result of the verification that the above 77 marks were mentioned in the preceding 77 marks, and the above 77 marks are counted in the original part, and the whole voting papers are valid and invalid, each candidate's valid votes and their order are as defendant 254,440 marks, 38,647 marks, defendant 38,623 marks, and defendant 213,076 marks, so the number of valid votes in this constituency should be decided in the order of the number of valid votes in accordance with Article 16 (2) and the main sentence of Article 127 (1) of the Election Act and Article 127 (1) of the same Act, although the committee decided that defendant 3, who is not the plaintiff, as the elected person, should not be decided as the elected person, since the part of the plaintiff's preliminary decision on the candidate's election against the defendant 3 in violation of the main sentence of Article 127 (1) of the Election Act and Article 127 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act and the plaintiff's claim is groundless.

However, there are minority opinions such as the Supreme Court judge's standing to be a party, the attached Form A of this Rule, and the interpretation of the validity and invalidity of the exhibited mail voting, there are minority opinions such as Kim Ha, the same rule, and the supplementary opinion with regard to the majority opinion, such as the Supreme Court judge's leap.

Supreme Court Judge Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge) Rule 201Hun-young, Lee Young-su, Lee Young-young, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Jong-ho, Lee Jong-ho, Lee Jong-ho

Minority Opinion on the Eligibility for Defendant

In the interpretation of Article 140 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act, the eligible persons to become the defendant in the lawsuit for invalidation of election can be classified as the following three categories.

1. Where a ground for asserting an objection to the validity of the election for a specific elected person is the ground for claiming the facts falling under the proviso to paragraph (1) of the same Article, the chairperson of the relevant election commission;

2. Where the reason for alleging as an objection is the cause of a claim that is not the above one, only the elected person whose effect of election is disputed (the elected person who is not the object of election shall not be the defendant).

3. If the grounds for an objection are the grounds for a claim based on the above facts Nos. 1 and 2, it is evident that the chairman and the elected person concerned are the legitimate grounds for a claim.

In this case, even if the number of votes obtained from the plaintiff is less than that of the plaintiff, the defendant 3 has an objection to his election because he decided the defendant as the elected person due to the error in the election table of the election commission even though the number of votes obtained from the plaintiff was less than that of the plaintiff, and the defendant 2 has no objection to the election of the defendant 2. Thus, the lawsuit for invalidation of the election of this case is explained above that only the chairperson of the defendant election commission has the standing to be the defendant, and that the defendant 2 or the defendant 3 has no standing to be the defendant in the lawsuit for invalidation of the election of this case. Thus, the part of the lawsuit for invalidation of the election of this case is illegal

Minor views on the invalidity and invalidity of the Postal Voting Act

According to Article 102(3) of the Election Act, in the case of vote by mail, when the election commission sends a ballot paper to an elector, it is determined that the elector should put the ballot paper into an envelope for return use and send it again in an outer envelope for return use. Therefore, the elector who received the ballot paper is prohibited from using the outer envelope for vote by mail. Accordingly, Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the Election Act provides that the elector who received the ballot paper shall put it into the ballot paper and seal it again, put it into the outer envelope, seal it again, put it into the outer envelope, put it into the outer envelope, put it into the outer envelope, put it into the designated part of the back.

Therefore, the phrase "those which are not sealed for votes by mail" as invalid under Article 122 (1) of the same Act refers to any one of the outer envelopes, and therefore, if any one of the outer envelopes is not sealed, there is no doubt in the grammatic interpretation that the vote by mail contained therein is invalid, and the election commission's table that is so treated is justified.

The laws and regulations on elections should be strictly interpreted and applied, the length to ensure the fairness of elections, and the expansion or analogical application of them without permission, and the confusion that it is impossible to walk as seen below should be added.

However, the majority opinion held that the regulations on the ballot counting of vote by mail (Article 119(3) of the same Act, Article 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 61 of the same Enforcement Decree) guarantee the secrecy of voting, and that if an outer envelope is sealed in a manner that respects the intention of the elector since there is no possibility that he does not intervene, the vote is valid even if it is not sealed, and that the envelope which includes the voting paper is sealed, the vote is considered valid, and thus, the competent election commission, which dealt with

얼핏 생각하면, 이런 해석은 퍽 합목적적이며 합리적인 것으로 보이나 실은 그렇지 않다는 점을 아래에서 설명하고자 한다.

1. The Korean Election Act declares that all votes shall be kept confidential (Article 112 of the same Act) and has various regulations for the protection of confidentiality and the prevention of fraudulent infringement in the voting and ballot counting process. However, even if there are many cases where the secrecy of voting is infringed and obtained at each time of election, it has been experienced in all the cases where the secret of voting has been infringed and broken off. There is a problem that how much is possible if the secret is guaranteed only with the strict existence of the statute and the prevention of fraudulent infringement is not so.

In this position, the majority view that the confidentiality is guaranteed even if it is not stipulated in the law, and that there is no room for the illegal materials is wanting to see the reality and to blue the ideal.

For example, one for example, one for example. When the ballot paper is left against the inner envelope, the majority theory can be seen as this.

That is, it is also possible to see that the place where the mark is put out of the place where the mark is put, and in this case, it is valid, and if it is valid, it is also valid to put the mark in the outer envelope as if it is not contained in the inner envelope. If so, it is difficult to understand that the election law should not return to an insignificant marbly intent to use the inner envelope as mentioned above, even if it is not sealed in the city, it is difficult to understand what is the case where it is being used by using a high-quality inner envelope while taking many costs and efforts to use it.

2. The majority opinion argues that the elector’s intention is respected. It is not sufficient that the elector does not respect the elector’s intention in various elections. As such, us is also entirely dynamic to the United Nations, but we think that it is the length to respect the elector’s overall intent to comply immediately with the election regulations that the elector intends to ensure and maintain confidentiality.

If the law is observed, we also recognize that it can not reflect the intention of each elector in the election, but it is inevitable to view it as an inevitable result to see that it is smaller.

In the verification of this case, the fact that there is no private seal of the chairman of the voting district election commission (Article 102 (2) of the Act) in the case of a general vote is not a regular ballot paper, but a vote was invalidated without doubt of not being suspected of being a regular ballot paper (Article 122 (1) 1 of the same Act), and the fact that it is right to do so was the case of a party member's decision (Article 122 (1) 3 of the same Act, Supreme Court Decision 67No4 Decided June 3, 1968, and Article 52 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Election of National Assembly Members at that time) shall not be changed even if it is proved that the

On the other hand, in the case of vote by mail, the elector has the provision of Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, and even if the plastic bag is not sealed, the elector's intention is respected and the valid vote is expressed in a clear answer of the majority opinion.

3. In addition, the majority opinion that the election commission takes charge of the relevant election affairs and manages and executes them in accordance with the laws and regulations (see Articles 1 and 3 of the Election Commission Act). As such, under Article 122 of the National Assembly Election Act and Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the majority opinion that the inner envelopes are invalid and invalid in accordance with Article 122 of the National Assembly Members Act and Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is rather considered unlawful. Thus, the election commission should manage the election affairs in accordance with the standards of Mason, and the election commission should not make the regulations equivalent to the laws and regulations.

As explained above, us interpret that the vote by mail without sealing the inner envelope should be deemed invalid without being marked on any candidate. As such, since the number of votes obtained by Defendant 3 less than the elected person falls short of 52 votes, the Plaintiff did not make any error in the decision of election of the election commission concerned, and thus, us’s opinion that the Plaintiff’s request for invalidation of the election should be dismissed as it is without merit.

C. Opinion concurring with the Majority Opinion by Justice of the Supreme Court

B. We agree with the majority opinion and supplement some other parts in addition to this.

As a matter of ensuring the secrecy of voting in an election, no exception to the National Assembly member election Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") shall be made. However, the confidentiality of the most important confidentiality is also the issue up immediately before the commencement of the ballot counting, and if the voting is open to the public and discarded as a result of the commencement of the ballot counting, the secret of the voting shall be unfortunateed. However, the ballot counting procedure prescribed by the Act shall be opened from the opening of the general ballot box to the open place where the general ballot box is opened, and the witness of the ballot-counting witnesses and the general public is carried out at the open place where the public view is permitted. As such, the ordinary ballot-counting procedure should be opened, and it shall be opened from the open of the ballot-counting procedure to the open place of the ballot-counting, the ballot-counting procedure shall be opened to the public, and the secrecy of the voting shall not be the same as the ordinary ballot-counting procedure.

Postal votes appear on the legal line, which is the most important issue to guarantee the secrecy of the voting paper. Here, it is difficult to say that Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Code provides the outer envelope for return use again and causes the neutrony who requires the sealing of the voting paper. However, it is difficult to recognize that the postal votes are more peculiar than that of the general voting, and that it is only confidential matters during the transportation period, and that the ballot counting procedure or the validity of the voting is different, without counting the opening of the outer envelope as provided in Article 50 of the above Decree, and if the ballot counting should follow the conditions after the opening of the outer envelope, the sealing of the inner envelope should be treated disadvantageously without the reason.

우편투표는 외봉투의 봉함으로 충분히 비밀이 유지된 이상 내봉투의 봉함여부는 그 사태에 영향이 전연 없는 것이니 ［따지는 것이 군소리가 될 것이므로 다시 말해서 위 령 제50조 의 규정한 내봉투의 봉함은, 있어서 안될 것은 없으나, 없다고 안될 것은 못되는 군소리거나 뱀의 다리로 인정될 것 뿐이니 못본 체 한들 상관이 없는 것이므로 무슨 이유로던 위 규정의 문제된 부분을 그대로 적용한다면 "넌쎈스"를 못면하리니 그 적용을 정면으로 반대하는 이유는 바로 여기에 있다.