1. The part concerning the claim for nullification of dismissal, among the instant lawsuits, shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Defendant set the term of a labor contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant labor contract”) between the Plaintiff and the company engaged in the comprehensive management and repair business of buildings, the cleaning and management business of buildings, the term of a labor contract between January 11, 2013 and January 10, 2014; the term of a labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from January 11, 2013 to January 10, 2014; the term of a labor contract between the Plaintiff; the term of a labor contract is C main apartment complex unit, located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as U.S. business; the term of a work is from 08:0 to 12:00 to 16:00 (to Saturdays; Saturdays from 08:0 to 12:00 to 13:00 to 10:30) (hereinafter referred to as “instant labor contract”).

(2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant employment contract, the Plaintiff signed and sealed a written entrustment with the Defendant stating that “the Plaintiff voluntarily sought employment as a person subject to retirement age (the age of 60) or a middle-aged person under the Defendant’s rules of employment, and his family consented to his employment, and does not raise any objection against dismissal under the Defendant’s rules of employment. In particular, the Plaintiff shall not be subject to any legal objection due to any type of illness, accident, etc., and signed and sealed a written entrustment with the Defendant, stating that “The Plaintiff shall comply with the regulations, work guidelines, etc. during the Defendant Company’s work, and shall not leave his work place during his work period.”

B. From January 16, 2013, the Defendant, from around January 16, 2013, ordered all the U.S. members including the Plaintiff to observe working hours and meal hours, and continued to order them not to leave the work site during working hours, and was in violation of this order, was given a leave of absence. On June 3, 2013, the Defendant continued to use the restaurant in the C main apartment and the restaurant installed in the above building, and was signed by 31 employees including the Plaintiff in the document stating the following contents, etc.

2. The building management business shall be kindly friendly to the occupants and visitors.