2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Intervenor is a foreign investment corporation in Japan, which is established around April 200 and ordinarily employs 26 workers and engages in the manufacturing and wholesale business of construction snow equipment and materials, and the Plaintiff was employed as the head of the division in charge of the Intervenor’s management on August 4, 2014.

B. On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Intervenor’s representative director a letter of resignation without stating his/her written statement and date while meeting with the Intervenor’s representative director, and the same year.

3. On 20. 20. The intervenor management director C does not coincide with the company.

4. By October, 100, “I will know” upon receipt of the recommendation letter.

“The intervenor respondeds,” and the same year.

5. 1.1. The plaintiff was recommended to be dismissed.

C. The Plaintiff asserts that the Intervenor’s dismissal on April 10, 2015 is unfair and unfair. The same year

7. 8. On September 4, 2015, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the employment relationship was terminated by an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on February 22, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the date of resignation submitted by the Plaintiff on January 26, 2015 is not indicated, and it is merely an expression of mistake, not a conclusive declaration of intention to resign. Even if this is conditional declaration of intention, there is no cause attributable to the Plaintiff to the extent that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to continue the employment relationship, and even after the Plaintiff continued to work normally, the said resignation was invalidated.