1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of the loss of membership among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 47,301,985.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs construction machinery equipment business and wastewater treatment business.

B. On September 5, 2007, the Defendant was dismissed on August 31, 2014 while serving as the chief of electrical safety management and the chief of general affairs, who was employed by the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous dismissal”). (c)

The defendant filed a claim for nullification of dismissal and a lawsuit for wage claim against the plaintiff.

On June 10, 2016, the Seoul High Court affirmed that “the dismissal of the Plaintiff against the Defendant on August 31, 2014 by the Plaintiff is null and void, and the Plaintiff issued a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 3,848,718 per month from September 1, 2014 to the date the Defendant is reinstated.”

(Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na204517, hereinafter referred to as "previous dismissal judgment"). The above judgment was dismissed both the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal, and it became final and conclusive September 29, 2016.

From July 11, 2016 to December 19, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail with a personnel order ordering the Plaintiff to be reinstated on 12 occasions. Among them, the Plaintiff sent each content-certified mail to the Defendant as of July 11, 2016, October 7, 2016, October 19, 2016, October 19, 2016, and November 29, 2016.

E. On January 2, 2017, the Defendant was present at the Plaintiff Company, and submitted an application for early retirement, and immediately retired at around 12:30.

F. On January 3, 2017, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a notice of the result of the examination that “the result of the in-house border test for the in-house border test for the in-house cancer examination was observed,” and filed an application for leave of absence (hereinafter “instant application for leave of absence”) which wishes to be completely cured from January 4, 2017 to the full recovery period, but the Plaintiff did not approve the Defendant’s application for leave of absence on the ground that the symptoms alone do not have any particular problem in the performance of duties.

G. The Defendant did not work at the Plaintiff Company from January 4, 2017.

H. The Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee on January 24, 2017 and held it on the ground that “the Defendant was absent without permission for about nine days from January 4, 2017 to January 16, 2017.”