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. On March 4, 2016, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into an employment contract with the Defendant. The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on March 10, 2016 without justifiable grounds, and violated the disciplinary procedures of the rules of employment. As such, the Defendant’s dismissal on March 10, 2016 against the Plaintiff is null and void, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff unpaid wages during the period of dismissal.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the validity of dismissal of the part of the claim seeking confirmation of dismissal is valid, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it becomes an appropriate means, in order to restore the original status based on a labor contract, or to eliminate the present risk or apprehension of other rights or legal status due to dismissal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da20149, Jan. 15, 1993). Therefore, if it becomes impossible to recover the status of an employee upon the expiration of the employment period, there is no benefit of lawsuit seeking confirmation of dismissal.

Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, comprehensively taking account of the facts that the instant case was not disputed between the parties, the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, and the purport of the entire argument No. 6, the Defendant, who is in charge of managing B apartment located in Osan-si, issued a public notice of recruitment of one contractual worker for apartment management on February 29, 2016. The Plaintiff reported the above public notice and interview, and started working at the Defendant Company from March 4, 2016, and the Plaintiff made a statement to the Director of the Management Office on March 4, 2016. Upon being known to the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company first prepared a labor contract with the Plaintiff from March 4, 2016 to April 3, 2016, and held a disciplinary committee on March 10, 2016, constitutes grounds for disqualification under Article 13 of the Rules of Employment (Article 13 of the Rules of Employment).