1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Circumstances and details of the decision on reexamination;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on March 4, 2013 and engaged in the development and manufacturing of parts using approximately 20 employees in smart self-location materials.

Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person who joined the Plaintiff on June 19, 2017 and served as the director of the management strategy team.

B. On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff deleted the Intervenor’s fingerprints registered with the access system, and the Intervenor did not attend the program any longer after attending the meeting on October 13, 2017 and talking with D, the representative director of the Plaintiff.

C. On December 5, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that “the dismissal of the Intervenor on October 13, 2017 is unreasonable.”

On April 5, 2018, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “a resignation has been discovered that the Intervenor directly signed and accepted by the Plaintiff is the termination of the employment relationship following the termination of the agreement.”

On May 14, 2018, the intervenor appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On July 11, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial trial court on the ground that “the intervenor expressed his/her intention to resign to his/her superior on October 11, 2017, but was lawfully withdrawn, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the intervenor expressed his/her intent to resign to the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the intervenor’s resignation was discovered in the presence of the intervenor on the part of the intervenor’s book.” and accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. On September 26, 2017, the Intervenor participated in the meeting held on September 26, 2017 (the representative director of the Plaintiff) and E (the Plaintiff’s director).

The intervenor did not work for Byung on September 27, 2017, the next day, and the head of the division F, who is the plaintiff's employee, in the first day, D' in the first day to the head of the division.