1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) established the main office in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City and employed approximately 4,500 full-time workers in Gangseo-gu, and operated the manufacture and sales of automobiles. The Plaintiff is a person who was enrolled in the Intervenor Company on December 1, 1997 and worked in Busan Factory Technical Research Institute, Seoul Public Relations Center, etc.

B. On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted to the Intervenor as of December 13, 2013, the date scheduled for retirement, and accordingly, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff as of December 13, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant retirement”). C.

On December 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the Plaintiff’s submission of retirement allowances constitutes a false representation of intention, and that the Intervenor’s withdrawal of his/her intention of resignation on November 20, 2013 constituted an unfair dismissal.

On February 11, 2014, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the plaintiff's request for remedy on the ground that the plaintiff's submission of the plaintiff's retirement allowance does not fall under a false statement of intention, and it is impossible to withdraw the worker's unilateral resignation as it was conducted under the agreement between the parties to terminate the labor contract.

Busan High Court Decision 2013Du721) d.

On February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on May 8, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the Plaintiff’s submission of the instant retirement allowances was the best in the circumstances at the time, and the Plaintiff was not an offer to terminate the agreement seeking the employer’s consent, making it impossible to withdraw unilateral resignation and that the instant retirement disposition does not constitute dismissal.

(Central 2014 Sub-Section 209, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, A, 1, 2, 3, and 3.