1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates urban bus transportation business using 500 full time workers with the main office and 500 or more employees in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was a person who was employed by the Plaintiff on September 15, 1995 and worked as the luminous branch management and maintenance company affiliated with the engine department.

B. On July 2, 2012, the Intervenor prepared and submitted a resignation letter to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2012, and the Plaintiff accepted it and dismissed the Intervenor.

C. On August 1, 2012, the intervenor served at the Plaintiff’s mining name branch office. On the same day, the plaintiff sent a letter to the intervenor stating that “the intervenor is not an employee belonging to the Plaintiff, and requests the intervenor to leave the workplace of the Plaintiff’s mining name branch office.”

(hereinafter “instant eviction notice”). D.

On September 28, 2012, the Intervenor asserted that the instant notice of eviction constitutes unfair dismissal, and applied for relief from unfair dismissal to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “ Gyeonggi Labor Relations Commission”), and on December 4, 2012, 2012, the Gyeonggi Labor Relations Commission issued a remedy order (hereinafter referred to as the “instant remedy order”) on the ground that the Intervenor’s submission of a written resignation constitutes unfair dismissal on the ground that “the Intervenor’s submission of a written resignation is an expression of intention not for interim settlement of retirement benefits, but the Plaintiff was aware or could have known of it,” and that the instant notice of eviction constitutes unfair dismissal, and thus, the Plaintiff deemed that “the Intervenor was reinstated to his original position within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written determination, and was paid the amount equivalent to wages that could have been received if he had worked during the dismissal period.”

E. On January 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination of the instant order for remedy with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “China”) (hereinafter “Central Labor Relations Commission”). On April 2, 2013, China Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “China Labor Relations Commission”) declared that the Intervenor’s submission of the written resignation was not an advance for the purpose of interim settlement of retirement allowances, and the Plaintiff was aware of this, and thus, the instant notice of eviction constitutes dismissal, which constitutes justifiable grounds or grounds.