1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Basic Facts

The defendant is a company with the purpose of wholesale import and sale, export sale, etc. in Korea.

Plaintiff

A A is a person who was employed by the defendant around November 2010 and worked until August 25, 2018, while Plaintiff B is a person who was employed by the defendant on June 1, 1995 and worked until September 30, 2018.

On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff A submitted to the Defendant a letter of resignation to resign as of August 25, 2018.

Since August 14, 2018 to August 24, 2018, Plaintiff A used paid leave and resigned from the Defendant on August 25, 2018, and received retirement souvenirs equivalent to KRW 36,360,568 and KRW 1,045,00 from the Defendant as retirement allowances, and returned the Defendant’s equipment owned by the Defendant, such as the corporate card and the vehicle in the name of the Defendant, on August 24, 2018.

Plaintiff

B submitted to the Defendant, on July 25, 2018, a resignation to resign as of September 30, 2018, and transferred the duties to the successor.

On September 30, 2018, Plaintiff B retired from office on September 30, 2018, and received retirement souvenirs equivalent to KRW 33,402,228 and KRW 1,683,00 from Defendant as retirement allowances.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15, and the gist of the plaintiffs' assertion as to the purport of the whole pleadings from the end of May 2018, and from the end of July 20, 2018, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 1 to 15 were doubtful as to whether the plaintiffs' representative director, former office, etc. of the defendant's representative director, etc. were not in the relation of inhumanity, and the defendant continued to vindicate or resign the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the plaintiffs submitted a resignation statement by not being forced by the defendant, and even if they submitted the restoration data to the defendant by restoring the contents of the Mesens communications among the plaintiffs contained in the plaintiffs' mobile phones, the defendant asserted that the above restoration data alone did not prove that the plaintiffs did not have an inhumanity relationship, and dismissed the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are representative directors and former directors of the defendant.