1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. We affirm that the Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiff on October 25, 2017 is null and void.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant and D Group Defendant are accounting corporations established under the Certified Public Accountant Act, and D Group is a federation consisting of corporations using E’s brand in Korea (Defendant, F limited liability companies, G customs corporations, and H limited liability companies).

The defendant's regional representative director I, J, and K had the position of "general representative director" of the D Group.

B. The partnership belonging to the above corporations using the pertinent E’s brands between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is classified into “sten partnership” and “high import partnership (Fixed Inc.) without being granted.”

On January 1, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, under which the Plaintiff would enter the Defendant as a member of the Defendant’s unit. The contents of this case pertaining to the Plaintiff’s service commencement date is January 1, 2008 as follows.

Article 2 (Departments and Classes of Work) (1) The position of the Tax Consultation Headquarters. (2) The amount of the plaintiff's annual salary shall be based on the defendant's Partn Unit Synit Sys (PUS) (1) of the attached Table (Amount of annual salary) and five hundred million won a year.

(2) The payment, adjustment, and dividend of an annual salary shall be determined by the PUSS.

Article 4 (Evaluation of Work Performance) The Plaintiff is assessed each year by Part Ner Eva (PES), which is the Defendant’s Part Ner Evaluation System.

Article 9 (Other Matters) Other matters not included in the above provisions shall apply to the defendant's partial partnership-related provisions (including partial partnership-related agreements between partners).

(c).

1) On July 2017, the Defendant decided to dismiss the Plaintiff as a person eligible for voluntary retirement, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff was selected as a person eligible for voluntary retirement around August 2017. 2) On August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) around August 14, 2017, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s selection of the Plaintiff as a person eligible for voluntary retirement was based on the premise that the Plaintiff had a ground for dismissal as a partner or partnership.