1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor was a corporation established on May 15, 1990, which ordinarily employs approximately 60 workers to process and sell fishery products, and the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor company on November 16, 2015 and worked at the D points in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed on February 17, 2016, and filed an application for remedy with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 29, 2016, but was dismissed on May 30, 2016 on the ground that “the termination of labor relations cannot be deemed to have been made by the Intervenor’s unilateral declaration of intent, and there is no dismissal.”

C. On July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff was dismissed on the same ground that there was no dismissal since the Plaintiff appears to have voluntarily retired.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around February 16, 2016, the Intervenor refused to draw up a notice of resignation in the course of an interview with E management director, a general manager of the Intervenor’s factory, and F, a production management team leader, the Plaintiff again forced the Plaintiff to draw up a notice of resignation, and the Plaintiff unilaterally dismissed the Plaintiff on the same day as the Plaintiff refused to do so. The fact that the Plaintiff was dismissed on the above date is clearly indicated in the Plaintiff’s salary statement as of February 16, 2016. It is apparent that the Plaintiff’s withdrawal date is indicated in the Plaintiff’s salary statement as of February 16, 2016, and that the Intervenor driven out the Plaintiff who worked the next day. Accordingly, the instant review decision otherwise determined is unlawful and thus should be revoked. (ii) The Plaintiff is merely a daily worker, and thus, is able to be reinstated to the Intervenor at any time.

(b) the defendant.