1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the Plaintiff.

An intervenor in the position of a party to the instant decision is a company that employs more than 100 full-time workers and operates computer pre-inspection services, communications sales business, etc., and the Plaintiff is a person who entered and works in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. on November 1, 2007 and worked as the deputy head of the participant company separated from the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. from January 1, 201.

On January 18, 2013, the intervenor, including the submission of the plaintiff's letter of resignation and the details thereof, discovered data such as the organization level comprised of nine employees of the intervenor company including the plaintiff, from the plaintiff's computer while conducting the security inspection.

Accordingly, on January 21, 2013, E, a representative director of the Intervenor, E, F, and G, a director, had interviewed the Plaintiff in the order of January 21, 2013. At the time, F Full-time was urged to voluntarily resign from the Plaintiff while pursuing the alleged divulgence of the above data. In addition, when the Plaintiff did not prepare and submit a resignation statement, the Personnel Disciplinary Committee against the Plaintiff would be held, and the Plaintiff presented the letter of resignation as well as the letter of resignation, stating that “the measures against attempted occupational breach of trust and leakage of trade secrets (the measures against the risk of leakage of trade secrets)” along with the letter of resignation to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, on the same day, prepared and submitted to the Intervenor the letter of resignation (hereinafter “the letter of resignation in this case”) stating “in the form of an advisory official (an attempted occupational breach of trust and a measure against the risk of leakage of trade secrets)” as “the grounds for retirement,” and the Intervenor accepted the letter of resignation in this case on the same day.

On January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff expressed to the Standing Director his intention to withdraw his intention of resignation by posting the phone, but the F Executive Director respondeded to the purport that it is impossible to withdraw his intention of resignation due to the Plaintiff’s already accepted the instant letter of resignation.

The plaintiff of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission submitted the written resignation in this case to the intervenor's fraud and coercion.