1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On November 22, 1991, an intervenor was established for the purpose of building and housing management business, etc., and had its head office on the 476, 2nd floor of the Mayang-si, Annyang-si, Mayang-si, 476, and 2nd floor (falsals, members building), and had 8,000 full-time workers run the above target business

B. On January 24, 2016, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor Company, and served as the head of the flag team at the management office of the apartment B located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment,” and the pertinent management office as the head of the flag team.

C. On April 15, 2016, at least 23:00, the Plaintiff sent three times a guide broadcast stating that “the head of the management office unfairly imposed 10,000 tons of the common water supply fee as management expenses to the intervenors, and then sent KRW 10,000 to the intervenors. In correcting the heating expenses erroneously imposed in November 2015, the Plaintiff unfairly imposed 6,30,000 won as joint heating expenses. In this case, the residents unfairly imposed 16,30,000 won.”

(hereinafter “instant broadcast”). D.

Around April 16, 2016, the Director of the instant management office sent Kakakao Stockholm messages to the Plaintiff stating that “I would not work from the date. I would like to take legal measures against the Director of the Management Office’s defamation and damage to the residents. I would like to do this point.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). (e)

On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal. However, on June 14, 2016, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that “the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is terminated not by dismissal, but by dismissal on April 23, 2016, based on the termination of the term of the labor contract, and the refusal of this employment by the Intervenor, considering the Plaintiff’s business attitude, is deemed reasonable.”

F. The Plaintiff