2010A. 21484 Nullification of the dismissal from office for member

New Benefit (52 years old, South)

Suwon-si District:

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant

The Industry Promotion Agency, a foundation

Posisibity

Representative Director Kim28

Law Firm ＋ + +

Attorney Lee In-bok

March 31, 2011

April 2011, 201

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

On October 28, 2010, the Defendant confirmed that his dismissal from office on October 28, 2010 against the Plaintiff was null and void.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant foundation establishes and operates a "00 won (hereinafter referred to as "the above 00 won") as an incorporated foundation established mainly by a 00-market withdrawal in order to foster and support the digital industry within the jurisdiction of the OO.

On July 2, 2007, the Plaintiff was appointed by the president of the above Promotion Agency with the approval of the Defendant Foundation as the head of the first class planning office of the said Promotion Agency, and served as the head of the planning office from that time.

B. In the local election conducted on June 2, 2010, when KimO was elected to 00 markets, 00 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 o o0 o0 o, and upon these positions, the director-general and 00 o0 o-o o o o o was visiting the above o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o, and explained

C. As to this, the Plaintiff refused to submit a written resignation, prepared a resignation statement stating that the Plaintiff would resign on July 28, 2010 due to the personal circumstances, “Isn, Isnish, and Isnish, Isnish, Isnish, and submitted it to the Defendant Foundation through the staff in charge of the OO.

D. On October 28, 2010, through the president of the above Agency, Defendant Foundation made a disposition of dismissal from office for Council members against the Plaintiff on October 28, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition of dismissal from office”) on October 10, 2010, and on November 9, 2010, paid the Plaintiff a retirement allowance accordingly.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-1, 2-2

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the local election conducted on June 2, 2010, when Kim 00 won won as an OO market, the Plaintiff demanded 00: (a) to submit a written resignation en bloc to the president, office, and director of eight organizations affiliated with the above Agency including the Agency; (b) the director and the director of this division demanded 00:0:00: and (c) the submission of a written resignation is formal, so that the Plaintiff is able to continue to work in the case of the Plaintiff; (d) while there is no intention to resign, the Plaintiff ordered the instant written resignation without any choice but without any choice due to coercion, intimidation, or deception of the public officials in charge of 00: (a) the declaration of intention to resign through the written resignation is invalid as a statement of intention by coercion, or as a declaration of intention by coercion or deception; and (b) the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention is invalid as the service of the instant complaint or dismissal of the Plaintiff as a duplicate of the instant complaint; and (b) thus, (c) the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention is void or void.

B. Determination

(1) As to the assertion of intention by duress

First of all, in order to be a declaration of intent by coercion, it should be the other party’s expression of intent to feel fear due to an unlawful threat of harm and injury, and in order to become null and void without merely being cancelled as a defective declaration of intent by duress, the degree of gambling is not that to make the other party feel fears by the notification of illegal harm and injury, but it should be the extent that the expression of intent was made only by the external appearance of the juristic act, even though it was made in a state where it was completely unfortunateed that it could make the decision-making by itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da73708, 73715, May 13, 2003, etc.).

However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was informed of any disadvantage or other harm in personnel affairs and submitted the above resignation at the time of submission of the resignation of this case by the head of the above promotion institute or the employee of the defendant foundation, or the employee of the OO's office at the time of submission of the resignation of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion that the resignation by coercion is retired by coercion is without any need to further examine other issues.

(2) As to the assertion of intent by deception

In the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's submission of the resignation from the employee in charge of the plaintiff's business support, the OO-type company support, and the guidance Kim U.S. is formal, and in the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's submission of the resignation statement is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's submission of the resignation statement with the belief that the plaintiff will not be accepted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of resignation by deception is without merit, without further review of different points.

(3) As to the assertion of intention of the truth-finding

A declaration of intention is effective even if it knows that it is not true, provided that it is void only if the other party knew or could have known that it is not a true person (Article 107 of the Civil Code);

According to the above facts of recognition, it is recognized that the director-general and the director-general in charge of the O-si explain to the plaintiff the position of the personnel policy of 00 p.m. and recommended the plaintiff to submit resignation directly or indirectly.

On the other hand, however, there was strong pressure or deception from the above 00 staff members or the above 00 staff members of the defendant foundation or the above 00 staff members of the defendant foundation. It is difficult to see that the above 00 staff members or the above 00 staff members or the above 00 staff members or the above 00 staff members were forced to resign. Furthermore, the above 4th evidence Eul 2/3, witness right testimony and the whole 5th oral argument were examined: (i) although the plaintiff had gone through the public recruitment process, the plaintiff was newly prepared through the reorganization of the above 00 staff members or 0 staff members of the above 00 staff members who were employed at the local election, and (ii) there was no other reason to reject the plaintiff's resignation from the above 00 staff members or 0 staff members of the above 00 staff members who were present at the time of the above 0th election, and (iii) there was no reason to refuse to submit the plaintiff's resignation from the above 0th staff members of the defendant foundation.

If so, even if the Plaintiff was affected by the Plaintiff’s expression of his position on the personnel policy of the OO and the solicitation made by the staff in charge thereof in the course of submitting the written resignation, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff submitted the written resignation under the judgment that there was no choice but to resign, or that the Defendant Foundation or the president of the said 00 won knew that the Plaintiff had no choice but to resign. In full view of all the above circumstances, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence to recognize it (in full view of all the above circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff submitted the written resignation under the judgment that it was inevitable to accept the written resignation even if he did not have any choice but any other reasons such as the above OO’s position, the organization system of the Defendant Foundation or the said 00 won and the OO’s organization, and future prospects).

Therefore, the plaintiff submitted a written resignation without his intention to resign, and the defendant foundation also knew of this. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sok-hee

Judges Kim Jong-Un

Judges Kim Jong-type