1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. 인정사실 원고가 피고와 근로계약을 체결하고 피고가 운영하는 상시근로자 3인인 C에서 2012. 2. 3.부터 2016. 10. 28.까지 근무한 사실, 피고는 2016. 10. 말경 근무시간 중 원고가 술을 마시는 문제로 원고에게 “이렇게 근무를 하려면 그만뒀으면 좋겠다”고 말하였고, 원고는 며칠 후 일을 그만둔 사실, 원고는 퇴직 직후 피고를 퇴직급여 및 해고예고수당 미지급으로 고발한 사실, 그리고 피고가 퇴직급여 미지급 사실에 대하여 대전지방법원 천안지원 2017고약919 약식명령을 받아 2017. 7. 11. 확정되었고, 해고예고수당 미지급 사실에 대하여 기소유예처분을 받은 사실은 갑1호증, 을1 내지 5호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정할 수 있다.

2. The defendant did not dismiss the plaintiff.

The plaintiff accepted the defendant's recommendation for retirement and voluntarily resigned through consultation.

3. Determination

A. The grounds for termination of an employment contract as to whether the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff can be divided into retirement, dismissal, automatic extinguishment, etc.

Retirement is a worker's intention or consent, and dismissal is a unilateral intention against the worker's will, and automatic termination is automatically terminated regardless of the worker's or the employer's will.

The dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act refers to the termination of all labor contract relations which fall under the second, regardless of the name or procedure which is actually disadvantageous to the workplace.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da9632 Decided May 30, 2018). As asserted by the Defendant, the Defendant, an employer, recommended the Plaintiff, who is an employee, to resign, and the Plaintiff was accepted and resigned.

Even if the plaintiff was resigned, the reason why the plaintiff was resigned, and the defendant's solicitation for retirement.