1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, unless the court adds the following judgment as to part of

(The allegations made by the plaintiff in the trial are already determined in detail at the first instance court). Accordingly, they are quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary judgment] The plaintiff asserts that "the contract of employment between the plaintiff and the intervenor was terminated according to the voluntary intention of resignation of the intervenor rather than the plaintiff's unilateral intention, so the prior review ruling of this case was unlawful on different premise.

However, the facts acknowledged by the first instance court cited earlier are as follows: (a) the Intervenor submitted the instant resignation on February 5, 2014; (b) the details of the conversation made with N, the representative of the Plaintiff at the time of the submission of the instant resignation; and (c) the desired date of the resignation, etc.; and (d) the Intervenor was unable to seek a new workplace at the time of the submission of the instant resignation; and (b) it is difficult to find the grounds for voluntary resignation even in the event of disciplinary action different from his/her request; and (c) in addition, it is determined that the Intervenor expressed a conditional declaration of resignation to the Plaintiff on the condition of the cancellation of the disciplinary action by the personnel committee to avoid the occurrence of the disciplinary action against himself/herself; and (d) N was well aware of such circumstances.

However, on February 11, 2014, when the Plaintiff did not accept the resignation of the instant employee, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee and resolved that the Intervenor be punished by “public service”. As such, the Intervenor’s expression of intent to resign through the submission of the instant private employee was invalidated due to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the rescission.

Therefore, on February 12, 2014, the following day of the Plaintiff, the Intervenor “ March 7, 2014.”