2. The intervenor shall bear the part of the costs of lawsuit, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On March 1, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) was established and appointed as a full-time lecturer at A University established and operated by the Intervenor to the Defendant and was in the position of assistant professor at the time of March 3, 2007; (b) on March 12, 2007, sent a resignation letter stating that the Plaintiff petitioned to A University for resignation on the ground of personal correspondence (hereinafter “instant resignation”).

B. Accordingly, the A University Teachers' Personnel Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Personnel Committee") held on March 29, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "A University Teachers' Personnel Committee") passed a resolution on the Plaintiff's consent to the Plaintiff's dismissal from office. The Intervenor's meeting held on July 30, 2007 also passed a resolution on the Plaintiff's dismissal from office as of July 17, 2007. Accordingly, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that the dismissal from office was lawful on April 6 of the same year (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disposition on dismissal from office").

C. Since April 10, 2007, the intervenor dismissed the plaintiff's petition on July 9, 2007, on the ground that the plaintiff's dismissal from office is an unfavorable disposition against the plaintiff's will, and the defendant dismissed the plaintiff's petition on July 17, 2007, on the ground that the plaintiff's dismissal from office was an unfavorable disposition against the plaintiff's will. The plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff's petition on July 9, 2007 (hereinafter "the decision of the review office of this case").

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, and the purport of the body before oral pleadings

2. Whether the examination and decision of the appeal of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff suffered conflicts between the intervenor and the intervenor on March 12, 2007, and submitted the letter of resignation to the intervenor on March 14, 2007. On March 200, the plaintiff sent e-mail to B and C, the president of A University, as to the motive and circumstance in which the plaintiff submitted the above letter of resignation. On March 20, 2007, the plaintiff was recommended to withdraw his intention of resignation from the above C and on March 20, 2007, the plaintiff expressed the purport that he would withdraw his intention of resignation from the tin. Nevertheless, since the intervenor was unilaterally held on March 29, 2007 and the board of directors' resolution on March 30, 2007, and the plaintiff's resolution on the withdrawal of resignation from the office of the plaintiff on March 31, 2007, the plaintiff's expression of intent to resign from the office of a member, which had already been notified to the plaintiff on March 27, 2007.

(b) Facts of recognition;

(1) At the time of submission of the resignation letter of this case, the Plaintiff did not reflect the Plaintiff’s opinion in the process of newly employing special education and professors between the Intervenor and the Intervenor, and had conflict with the issue of reorganization of the education support center for disabled students and the disciplinary action against the president of the total school.

(2) On March 14, 2007, after the Plaintiff submitted the above resignation letter, the Plaintiff sent an e-mail explaining the reason why the Plaintiff submitted the resignation letter to B and C, the president of A University, the president of B and C, who is the principal of the school affairs. Of these, the part related to the truth that the Plaintiff submitted the resignation letter is as follows.

for any person to be evaluated by a personnel authority when that person’s petition is not accepted; and

For the authority of the personnel authority, it is thought that the person must pay a resignation in order to realize a new force.

n. For the important matters in this respect, no statement of opinion is made without permission, or any one’s own opinion; or

I think it is necessary to take charge of the last day of the statement in the school atmosphere. These days

This opportunity is to make it possible for divisions to do their best to make decisions on school policies.

판을 바랍니다 . 제가 말썽을 부려서 미운 놈 떡 준다는 생각으로 센터를 맡기셨는지 아니

I think that she would make efforts for the development of the school at the end of the day. . I want to know that she would do so.

(c) All results have the honor to make a decision on the side of the school, provided that the lowest is present.

4 months prior to the retirement, such as a contract under which to consider the arrangement of the position and the subsequent work

Although submitting a letter of position, the decision wants to be done in advance.

I would like to deal with the school so that it may not be available to the school, and re-established the first instance in which it has lost the system.

I would like to do. In other words, I would like to do so even if I will do so at the University as a funeral. All the services at the school.

On the other hand, I merely object to the contrary. . or . or . did not object to the personal desire.

If you can take part in the A University, I will be able to take part in it.

(3) On March 15, 2007, after the submission of the above resignation, the Plaintiff was urged to withdraw his intention of resignation on two occasions with the above C on March 20, 2007. In particular, on March 20, 2007, the second interview was held on March 20, 2007, whether or not the Plaintiff would not be suitable for the Plaintiff to have his “satise or to have his words continuously worked?” In other words, I would like to hear the words of “,” and “the Plaintiff responded to the interview.” (hereinafter referred to as “the interview between the Plaintiff and the above C”).

(4) However, after the instant interview, C did not hear explicit answers from the Plaintiff to the withdrawal of the intention of resignation, and reported this to B by the president, and commenced the procedure of convening the personnel committee on March 22, 2007.

(5) Accordingly, on March 29, 2007, the personnel committee was established in the presence of 7 members of the above C as the chairman of the personnel committee. In relation to the Plaintiff’s dismissal from office, the personnel committee made a decision on July 11, 2007 on the ground that the Plaintiff submitted the letter of resignation in this case in relation to the Plaintiff’s dismissal from office. In the event that the Plaintiff wishes to change his office at the time of the conclusion of the employment contract, the committee requested the Plaintiff to submit the letter of resignation in advance at least four months prior to the Plaintiff’s dismissal from office. Therefore, there was no objection to the Plaintiff’s dismissal from office.

(6) In addition, the intervenor convened the first board of directors in March 30, 2007, around 00: 11:00, and decided to dismiss the plaintiff from office as a member of the board of directors on July 17, 2007. The above B knew at around 10:30 on the same day immediately before the meeting of the board of directors was held that the resignation of this case is scheduled to be accepted as it is on the job of the plaintiff and the plaintiff at around 10:30 on the same day before the meeting of the board of directors. Accordingly, the plaintiff showed a harsh response.

(7) As stated in the above paragraphs (5) and (6) above, the Intervenor did not have notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the above internal procedure was in progress when the Intervenor convened the personnel committee and the board of directors to dismiss the Plaintiff, and then decided to dismiss the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the Intervenor continued the above procedure only after March 30, 2007, which was after the interview with the above division. The Plaintiff sent to the Intervenor a letter of intent to resign through C as of March 20, 2007, on April 1, 2007, “The Plaintiff already withdrawn the intention to resign from office as of March 20, 2007,” and thereafter, the procedure that the Intervenor promoted in relation to the dismissal of a member was unlawful and invalid. The mail certifying the content (hereinafter referred to as “mail certifying the content of this case”) of this case at the time of the interview with the above division.

(8) On April 6, 2007, the intervenor notified the plaintiff on March 30, 2007 that "the resignation of this case was submitted by the plaintiff according to his free will, and the intervenor notified the plaintiff on July 17, 2007 at the board of directors of the Council of March 30, 2007 that the plaintiff was decided to handle the plaintiff as a member of the Council. The intervenor sent content-certified mail to the purport that "............., the intervenor sent the plaintiff

(9) After July 18, 2007, the intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the completion of the administrative process regarding the dismissal from office by e-mail.

(10) Meanwhile, among the terms of the Intervenor’s articles of incorporation and the appointment contract made between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor (Evidence B No. 10, hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”), the contents relating to the instant case are as follows:

Article 43(2) of the Articles of Incorporation of the Intervenor

Teachers other than the head of a school shall be appointed or dismissed by the president after the resolution of the board of directors at the request of the head of the school after deliberation by the personnel committee.

Article 6 (Liability) 4 (g) of the contract of this case

When a teacher wishes to change his/her position to another institution during the term of his/her contract, he/she shall submit a written resignation not later than four months prior to the commencement of the semester (as of March 1 and September 1). In cases where he/she did not submit a written resignation not later than four months, a corporation shall not issue a written resignation for the smooth operation of the A University.

【Unsatched Facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap’s evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4, Gap’s evidence Nos. 7 and 8, Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 through 6-1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 8 through 10, Eul’s evidence No. 8 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(c) Determination.

(1) General theory

In a case where a worker submits a resignation and expresses his/her intention to resign, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed to be the cancellation of the employment contract concerned, and so long as the employee has reached the employer who is notified of the termination of the employment contract, the employee may not withdraw his/her intention of resignation even before the expiration of the period stipulated in Article 660(3) of the Civil Act without the employer’s consent. However, if the expression of intention can be interpreted as an offer for termination of the employment contract in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the contents of the written resignation, the motive and circumstance leading up to the preparation and submission of the written resignation, the situation after the submission of the written resignation, the motive for the withdrawal of the written resignation, and the motive for the withdrawal of the declaration of intention to resign, the employee’s consent may be withdrawn before the employee reaches the employee. However, such withdrawal is not allowed only in special circumstances deemed contrary to the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du657, Sept. 5, 200).

(2) Whether the instant resignation is an offer to terminate an agreement or to terminate an employment contract submitted.

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, the motive for the Plaintiff to submit the instant resignation document to the Intervenor is rather than ultimately at the time of termination of the labor contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor. The Plaintiff appears to be a means for the Plaintiff to strongly avoid the Plaintiff’s e-mail with respect to the management of school affairs of the University. immediately after the Plaintiff’s submission of the said resignation document, the Plaintiff urged the Intervenor to make a decision on his resignation with respect to his resignation or resignation, as well as reserved the final decision on his resignation. After the Plaintiff’s issuance of the said resignation document, the Plaintiff was entitled to withdraw his resignation with respect to the Plaintiff’s submission of the said written resignation agreement to the Intervenor. Accordingly, according to the premise that the Plaintiff’s submission of the said written resignation agreement to the Plaintiff is reasonable, the Plaintiff’s submission of the said written resignation agreement to the Plaintiff, as well as the submission of the written resignation agreement to the Plaintiff prior to the issuance of the said written resignation agreement to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s submission of the said written resignation agreement to the Plaintiff constitutes the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the said written resignation agreement.

(3) Whether the declaration of intention to resign has been withdrawn or not

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that he would have been able to express his intention to resign from the office of the Plaintiff at the time of this case, and that he would have expressed his intention to resign explicitly by the personnel committee and the board of directors. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff would have expressed his intention to withdraw his intention to resign from the office of the Plaintiff at the time of this case’s internal interview to the point of view that the Plaintiff would not have expressed his intention to withdraw from the office of the Plaintiff’s office of the Plaintiff’s temporary resignation. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff would have expressed his intention to withdraw his intention to resign from the office of the Plaintiff’s office of the Plaintiff’s office of the Plaintiff at the time of this case’s temporary resignation. On the other hand, it is unreasonable to deem that the Plaintiff would have expressed his intention to withdraw from the office of the Plaintiff’s office of the Plaintiff at the time of this case’s temporary resignation, as it appears that the Plaintiff would have expressed his intention to resign from the office of the Plaintiff.

(5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the intention to resign was legally effective since the Plaintiff made the time when the Intervenor expressed his intention to resign through the content-certified mail of this case. Accordingly, it is null and void for the Intervenor to dismiss the Plaintiff from office on April 6, 2007, after the Plaintiff’s intention to resign was withdrawn. Accordingly, the Defendant’s decision on the petition for review of this case, which deemed otherwise lawful, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Lee Dong-young

Judge Lee Yong-soo