부당해고구제재심판정취소
The instant lawsuit was concluded on November 10, 2020 as the withdrawal of the lawsuit.
The costs of lawsuit after the filing of a fixed date shall be the same.
1. Progress of litigation;
A. On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking “the Central Labor Council against the Defendant for the cancellation of a new trial ruling rendered on January 7, 2020 with respect to the case of unfair suspension from office and unfair dismissal from office between the Plaintiff, Nonparty C, D, and E,” and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor filed an application for intervention in the Plaintiff’s subsidy on March 11, 2020.
B. On November 2, 2020, G on behalf of the Plaintiff’s representative president was withdrawn from the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant consented to the withdrawal of the said lawsuit on November 10, 2020.
(c)
Plaintiff
On November 17, 2020, the Intervenor filed an application for the designation of the date with the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the lawsuit on November 17, 2020, asserting that the application for the designation of the date was null and void, and the application for the designation of the date was presented by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor, who was the representative of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor, on his/her own behalf. However, according to the contents of the Plaintiff’s representative’s acting representative at this court on December 16, 2020, the application for the designation of the date was not based on the Plaintiff’s intent, but was already under the delegation contract with the law firm on behalf of the Plaintiff (the contents of the document prepared by the Plaintiff on December 15, 2020, which was submitted by the Plaintiff’s agent Kim-Un, the application for the designation of the date seems to be based on the Plaintiff’s independent intent.
2. Determination
A. In a case where it is found that a trial has been conducted after the completion of the lawsuit, the court shall ex officio declare the termination of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da103048, Apr. 28, 201). According to the above recognition, the lawsuit of this case was concluded by the withdrawal of the lawsuit, barring any special circumstance.
B. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor is against Article 78(1)3 of the H Act, Article 1 of the Regulation on Inspection and Sanctions by I Cooperatives (hereinafter “the instant provision”), and Article 63-2(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the instant provision.