1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for this Court is as follows.

With the exception of adding the contents of the first instance judgment, it is identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42

B. (i) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant decision on reexamination, based on the premise that the dismissal was made, is unlawful, since the Plaintiff did not dismiss the Intervenor from the trial at the trial on December 24, 2012, and only resigned by the Intervenor itself.

The grounds for termination of the Sheet labor contract can be divided into retirement made by the employee’s intention or consent, dismissal made by the employee’s unilateral will against the employee’s will, automatic extinguishment made regardless of the employee’s intent, and the dismissal means the termination of all labor contract relations made by the employee’s unilateral will against the employee’s will, regardless of the name or procedure which is actually unfavorable to the workplace.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da92148 Decided March 24, 2011, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the first instance court cited earlier than the Plaintiff’s first instance court, and the circumstances cited by the first instance court, it is reasonable to deem that an employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated on December 24, 2012 by means of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, which is the Plaintiff’s unilateral intent.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① First of all, there is no document submitted by the intervenor to the Plaintiff, and there is no document to deem that the intervenor explicitly expressed his/her intention to resign even after examining the record.

Rather, on February 13, 2013, the intervenor submitted an application for remedy for unfair dismissal to the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission (the plaintiff's side filed a complaint against the intervenor on February 27, 2013 as a charge of occupational embezzlement). As asserted by the intervenor, the intervenor filed a complaint against the intervenor on February 27, 2013.