A case where an election was declared void and a re-vote was held two years later

In the 6th National Assembly election of 1963, a precedent was set where the voting in a specific precinct was declared void because only two out of the seven members of the precinct's election management committee attended to manage the election, whereas a majority was required. Since the margin of victory after excluding the votes from that precinct was 23 votes, and there were 146 eligible voters in that precinct, it was determined that the error affected the overall election result, leading to the election being declared void.

This became even more controversial because, based on the original results, candidate Lee Byeong-ok had won by 31 votes and was serving as a member of the National Assembly; however, voiding the results of that specific precinct would have meant candidate Kim Yong-dae won by 23 votes.

Following this ruling, a re-election was held specifically for that precinct two years after the original victory.

Candidate Lee Byeong-ok, who was the incumbent (?) member, secured an overwhelming 119 out of 132 votes, thereby retaining his seat.

Implications of this situation

If a problem occurs only in a specific voting precinct (polling station), only the results of that precinct are voided, rather than the entire election.

-> Since the issue is that some people were unable to vote, it is unlikely that the entire national election or the entire Seoul election would be declared void.

According to Article 224 of the current Public Official Election Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents, an election is declared void when there is a "violation of regulations concerning the election" and it is "recognized to have influenced the result of the election." In the 1963 case, because the result was an extremely close race, the votes from that precinct could have changed the outcome, leading to a partial voidance and a subsequent re-vote.

The fact that the National Election Commission (NEC) failed to prepare enough ballots, preventing some voters from voting, appears to be a clear violation of regulations such as Article 6 of the Public Official Election Act (Guarantee of the Exercise of Voting Rights).

In the case of the Seoul Mayoral election, since the number of voters in the affected precinct is small compared to the total number of voters in Seoul, an election nullification lawsuit could be dismissed even if there was an error, unless the margin of victory is within approximately 20,000 votes.

However, for local city council or district council elections, the number of voters is small, increasing the likelihood that it could influence the outcome. Therefore, I cautiously predict that a re-vote might be held only at the affected polling station for those specific elections.

The NEC is stating that "there is no law to stop the counting of votes," and indeed, it seems the NEC does not have the authority to stop the count or void an election on its own. If there is an objection to the election, a nullification lawsuit must be filed, and a judgment must be rendered (decided by the Supreme Court in a single-instance trial).

Source: https://www.fmkorea.com/best/9908990625