1. The part concerning the claim for nullification of dismissal, among the instant lawsuits, shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant employs not more than four workers at all times as an organization organized by the shop occupants (the owner or the tenant if the owner leases the store to others) in the commercial building for the purpose of operating and managing the commercial building in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. The Plaintiff had been working as the director of the management office of the instant commercial building since around 00 years, and entered into a standard employment contract with the Defendant each year setting the term of the employment contract as one year. On August 28, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant setting the term of the employment contract as 2.4 million won from August 28, 2018 to August 27, 2019, and the monthly wage as 2.4 million won.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant employment contract”) August 28, 2018.

On January 16, 2019, the Defendant opened a general meeting and resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff. On January 22, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff is dismissed as of January 24, 2019 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not use the official seal without permission, and did not perform his/her duties.”

(hereinafter “Dismissal of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The dismissal of this case is without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5; Eul evidence No. 1; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. In a case where seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal for workers as to whether the part of a claim for nullification of dismissal is lawful and a claim for wages during the period during which workers could have been provided with labor is filed, the purpose of the claim for nullification of dismissal is to restore the status under the labor contract between the employer and the employer. Thus, in a case where the retirement age, which is the ground for dismissal, has already been attained under the labor regulations of the employer at the time of the conclusion of the trial court,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da10027, Oct. 11, 1996). In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff is a worker employed for a specified period and as of the date of closing argument of this case.