2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Fitice Center, “C” operated by the Defendant, and retired on May 31, 2014.

B. On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff et al. asserted that the Defendant had been in arrears with the retirement allowance and pre-determination allowance to the Seoul Southern District Office. Accordingly, the head of the Seoul Southern District Office issued an order to correct the violation of the Labor Relations Act to the Defendant by September 5, 2014, stating that the Plaintiff et al. shall pay the Defendant the total of 14,428,525 won of the retirement allowance of six persons, including the Plaintiff, and the pre-determination allowance for dismissal against the Plaintiff by September 5, 2014, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff et al. retirement allowance and pre-determination allowance in accordance with the above corrective order.

C. Meanwhile, on October 2014, the Plaintiff, after withdrawal from C Insignia, was re-employed to another nearby emblem center.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, the purport of the whole argument

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's dismissal (hereinafter "the dismissal of this case") is null and void as the defendant unilaterally dismissed the plaintiff with a three-day period of time only without justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff wages incurred after the dismissal of the instant case.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not force the plaintiff to dismiss or dismiss, and rather, the plaintiff notified the defendant of his intention to resign with his employees at the time of his/her employment and retired from office to the neighboring skin center.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff filed a petition against the Defendant with the Seoul Southern District Office, and the Defendant was detained, but all corrective matters were implemented by paying retirement allowances and pre-determination allowances to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the case related to the dismissal of the plaintiff was already concluded.

The defendant's above assertion does not dispute the validity of dismissal, but rather seeks payment of retirement allowance and advance notice of dismissal against the defendant.