1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is that the defendant is composed of representatives from each Dong-gu B Apartment-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) pursuant to Article 43(3) of the Housing Act. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a manager on March 1, 2009 for the management of the apartment of this case.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that he was dismissed on January 12, 2013 from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant dismissal”). The Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission regarding the instant dismissal on February 15, 2013, but the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed it on April 22, 2013. The Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on May 7, 2013, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed it on July 9, 2013.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission to revoke the above decision on the relief from unfair dismissal. On April 10, 2014, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the grounds for termination of labor relations between the plaintiff and the defendant should be deemed to be resignation according to the plaintiff's intention and that the dismissal is not based on the defendant's unilateral declaration of intention. While the plaintiff appealed, the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on January 21, 2015.

① At the time of January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff was the representative of the Defendant C and the head of the management office, etc. of the instant apartment.

On January 14, 2013, the management office of the apartment of this case requested the employees of the management office of the apartment of this case to treat them so that they can receive unemployment benefits on the premise of resignation by calling for the intention of resignation.

② After that, the Plaintiff did not work to the Defendant without applying for sick leave or without notifying the Defendant of the date of attendance again.

③ The Plaintiff shall reach the instant apartment on January 25, 2013.