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 decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff Company is a legal entity that operates a training course with 500 full-time employees, and the Intervenor is a person who joined the Plaintiff Company on July 2, 2012 and has worked as the head of an overseas business sector that consists of an overseas business management team, overseas business1 and three teams.

B. At around 10:00 on February 26, 2015, the Intervenor had a representative director and an individual interview with the representative director in the office of representative director, following the call of the head of overseas business1 team C, the head of overseas business2 team D, and E, the representative director of the Plaintiff company, among the business meetings (hereinafter “representative director”).

In the process of the above interview, the representative director came to know that the intervenor divided the existing overseas business sector into two sections, consisting of the overseas business management team and the overseas business1 team, and that the division consisting of the two and three teams from overseas business operations to promote D, which is the head of the overseas business team, to be a director and take charge of it.

C. According to the proposal for reorganization as above, the intervenor expressed complaints to the representative director that a considerable portion of his/her duties will be reduced, and after completing an interview with the representative director, and returned to the place of the meeting and returned to the meeting participants, the intervenor asked F, who is not the secretary, to the effect that "at least necessary to hold the meeting." The intervenor asked F, who is the secretary, whether there was a letter of resignation used by the executive officer.

The representative director set up a complaint against the reorganization proposal, and thereafter, he proceeded with the meeting with the purport that the intervenor expressed his intention of resignation while protesting against the reorganization proposal, which is an executive officer of the plaintiff company. The representative director reported from G that the intervenor speaks to the effect that the intervenor is only a company, and concluded that the intervenor prepares follow-up personnel management by viewing that the intervenor's intention of resignation is clear.

(e) An intervenor shall have the representative director around 15:00 on the same day.