1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a legal entity that employs 56,00 full-time workers and whose business purpose is the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, etc., and the Plaintiff is a person who was enrolled in the Intervenor on November 25, 2002 and served as the Intervenor.

B. On April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a resignation letter (hereinafter “instant resignation”) to the intervenors on April 6, 2012, and demanded on April 6, 2012 that the Intervenor return the instant resignation.

C. However, on April 10, 2012, the intervenor posted the Plaintiff’s retirement personnel order on the company’s internal computer network. D.

On July 25, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor’s act of retirement against the Plaintiff constitutes unfair dismissal, and applied for unfair dismissal to the former Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission. The former Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on September 12, 2012.

E. On September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the said initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the said application for reexamination on December 21, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. On April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff submitted the instant resignation to the Intervenor constitutes an offer to terminate the employment contract, and the Plaintiff lawfully withdrawn his/her intent to resign before the Intervenor expressed his/her consent.

Nevertheless, it constitutes an unfair dismissal that the intervenor unilaterally made the retirement disposition against the plaintiff, and thus, the judgment of the retrial of this case is unlawful on different premise.

(b) Article 660 of the Civil Act (Notice of Rescission of Termination of Employment without Fixed Period) (3) of the relevant provision provides that the period of remuneration shall take effect upon the lapse of one day after the other party is notified of termination.

Article 10 (Classification of Retirements) of the Rules of Employment.