Court: "No Issues in the Election Process of Gil Gi-yeong as Chairman of Jung-gu Council"

Despite the People Power Party (PPP) councilors raising procedural illegality concerns and filing an administrative lawsuit over Gil Ki-young’s election as chairperson of the Seoul Jung-gu Council, they lost in the first trial.

According to the legal community on the 19th, the Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 5 (Presiding Judge Kim Soon-yeol) recently ruled against the plaintiffs in the first trial of the lawsuit filed by PPP Jung-gu Council members So Jae-kwon, Heo Sang-wook, Son Ju-ha, and Yang Eun-mi against the Jung-gu Council, seeking to nullify the local council chairperson election.

On July 6 last year, the Jung-gu Council attempted to hold a plenary session to proceed with the chairperson election process. However, So, the longest-serving and eldest councilor present who was acting as the chairperson, declared a recess following requests from his party members citing "insufficient internal party consultation." At that time, Gil, who was from the same party, reportedly experienced conflicts with other councilors during the chairperson election process.

Subsequently, until the third plenary session held on the 11th of the same month, more than 10 recesses were taken. In response, Democratic Party councilors opposing the recess occupied the chairperson’s seat, and Gil, the next eldest councilor after So, declared the session open.

Gil conducted a voice vote asking whether So was "failing to perform his duties related to the chairperson election without justifiable reason." Although So and others opposed this procedural move, the voice vote results were 5 in favor and 3 against out of 8 councilors present from a total of 9 members.

Gil declared that the "opinion was passed" and, as the next in line acting chairperson after So, proceeded with the plenary session. Subsequently, a secret ballot election for the chairperson team was held, resulting in Gil being elected as chairperson with the support of Democratic Party councilors.

On the other hand, So and others claimed that "there was collusion during the election process," abstained from voting, and filed an administrative lawsuit arguing that the resolution electing Gil as chairperson was invalid. During the trial, they argued that "declaring a recess due to the need for consensus was a legitimate exercise of authority by So, who was acting chairperson at the time," and that the Democratic Party councilors’ occupation of the chairperson’s seat and Gil’s use of a voice vote to strip So of his acting chairperson authority were illegal.

The first trial court rejected these claims, stating that "it is difficult to see any justifiable reason for So, who should have remained neutral regarding the election, to continuously delay the election."

Furthermore, the court noted that "unlike the chairperson, the acting chairperson’s authority is automatically granted to the senior or next senior councilor without a separate voting procedure under the Local Autonomy Act. There are no provisions for separate procedures or voting methods to change this authority," and thus found no illegality in the voice vote and session opening process.

The court added, "In a democratic country, it is essential to recognize and protect the freedoms and rights of minorities. However, local councils represent diverse and often conflicting interests of residents. If consensus cannot be reached despite dialogue and compromise efforts, the principle of majority rule must ultimately be followed."

Since So’s side did not appeal, the first trial ruling was finalized as is. Meanwhile, the People Power Party Seoul City Party Ethics Committee expelled Gil on grounds of "misconduct."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.