부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a legal entity that ordinarily employs 23 workers and operates “B childcare center” (hereinafter “instant childcare center”), and the Plaintiff is a person who was employed as a teacher in the instant childcare center on September 4, 2014 and worked as a teacher in the instant childcare center.
B. On October 10, 2014, in the process of approving the childcare plan, the Plaintiff submitted a resignation statement to the Intervenor to the effect that he/she would resign due to the following reasons (hereinafter “instant resignation”).
I confirmed the draft plan and confirmed the approval, and answer to "I have received two copies and notified".
It was the same as misunderstanding that was not a fluort fish, and as a result, I want to resign from the fluor because of the fact that fluort would be the fluor's resignation without any need for teachers such as the low.
C. On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor’s dismissal on October 10, 2014 was unfair, and applied for the remedy against unfair dismissal to the former Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014Du412). However, on February 3, 2015, the former Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s submission of the instant resignation by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the Intervenor’s coercion, and it appears that the Intervenor accepted the instant resignation prior to the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention of resignation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request for remedy cannot be revoked without the Intervenor’s consent.”
On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing draft inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (Central 2015 No. 132), but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on April 13, 2015 for the same reasons as the above draft inquiry court.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3-3, and 10, respectively, and pleadings.