부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(Other matters alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial are re-examineed, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable).
A. Even if it is true that the E-management office notifies the Intervenor that he will terminate the security service contract concluded between the E-management office and the Intervenor without the Plaintiff’s retirement as alleged by the Plaintiff’s assertion, this is a mere coercion of the Plaintiff’s resignation by force, and the resignation of the instant security guards is not legally effective, and thus, the termination of labor relations is unfair.
B. There is no evidence to prove that the resignation in the instant case was prepared by coercion or coercion, and instead, considering the overall purport of the pleading in the statement No. 5, E, the head of the management office of the instant apartment complex, which is the head of the management office of the instant apartment complex, has prepared and sent a notice of termination of the security service contract with the purport that the security guards will terminate the security service contract if the above problem is not resolved, in the situation where several civil petitions were filed by the occupants in the instant apartment complex, such as the attitude of security guards in the instant apartment complex, etc.
2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed as it is without merit.