The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. On April 13, 2016, the fact that the Defendant, the representative of the National Election Commission, decided the candidates for 47 persons, including 17 persons for the National Assembly member in the 20th proportional representative election (hereinafter referred to as the “instant election”), 13 persons for the Democratic Party, 13 persons for the people, 13 persons for the people, and 4 persons for the justice party, are significant in this court.

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the election of this case is null and void for the following reasons.

(1) The ballot counting machine used in the election of this case falls under the computer system, which is the integration system of ballot papers that output voting papers and ballot counting and the control computer that control each of them, and its use is limited to the special election pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Addenda of the former Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act (amended by March 16, 1994), and even if it is the computer system pursuant to Article 278 of the Public Official Election Act, it is not in compliance with the procedural provisions such as public relations with electors and consultation with political parties that form negotiating groups in the National Assembly. Thus, the election of this case cannot be deemed to have completed the valid ballot counting procedure.

(2) Article 150(10) of the Public Official Election Act provides that “The serial number shall be printed on the ballot paper.” The instant election was used a ballot paper with no serial number printed.

3. (1) The election lawsuit stipulated in Articles 222 and 224 of the Public Official Election Act is a lawsuit against an election as a collective act, and a lawsuit against an election is to invalidate all or part of the election when it is recognized that there has been a violation of the provisions regarding an election in a series of processes of election and thereby has influenced the result of the election.

The purpose of this is to legally implement an election and to determine the result of the election properly, so the state or public organization as provided by Article 3, subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act has committed an act in violation of the law.