The appeal is dismissed.

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4, the lower court determined that, in response to the proposal of the Intervenor joining the Defendant, the Plaintiff could not withdraw his/her intent of resignation at will after submitting a resignation letter on August 28, 2015, and thus, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor regarding the termination of labor relations was concluded

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the termination of an agreement

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 5, the lower court determined that, considering the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have submitted a written resignation at the time when the freedom of decision-making was infringed by mistake, deception, and coercion, and that, even if the Plaintiff was not bound by the genuine mind at the time of the submission of the written resignation, it was reasonable to view that the Plaintiff had the intention of resignation corresponding to the Plaintiff’s expression of intent, as it was the best to receive and withdraw the paid leave for three months in the current circumstances.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deception, coercion, or revocation of declaration of intent by mistake, contrary to what is alleged in

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the part arising from the participation in the assistance. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.