1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part to be determined additionally as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff agreed with the Plaintiff as to the settlement of annual leave compensation corresponding to the settlement of retirement pay without any objection by settling the annual leave compensation on December 30, 2014 and receiving KRW 95,310, and therefore, the Plaintiff recognized the validity of the dismissal in this case, and despite the Plaintiff’s active re-employment proposal, the Plaintiff expressed that the Plaintiff had no intention of continuous employment. In short, despite mutual agreement and trust on the fact that the instant dismissal was a legitimate dismissal, it would be contrary to the principle of good faith or the principle of prohibition that the Intervenor disputes the validity of dismissal on March 9, 2015, more than two months from the date of the dismissal.

B. Not only cannot be deemed to have recognized the validity of the dismissal of this case on the ground that the intervenor received annual leave compensation, but also telephone conversations with the investigator of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on May 1, 2015 and the same month.

7. In light of the Intervenor’s statement, etc. at the hearing of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, the Plaintiff’s failure to participate in an employment examination in accordance with the public notice of the employment plan as of October 24, 2014 is well acceptable, and otherwise, the Intervenor expressed to the Plaintiff that he did not intend to continue employment.

there is no evidence to acknowledge that the dismissal of this case was effective.

The plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.