1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the entry from 6th to 1st, second to 6th, of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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

A. On August 20, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor dismissed the Intervenor, despite the Plaintiff’s agreement on the amendment of the labor contract to pay benefits upon receiving the Plaintiff’s request for management difficulties, which was made on or around August 20, 2018. Accordingly, the Plaintiff accepted the Intervenor’s position on October 10, 2018, and ordered the Intervenor to work under the existing labor contract, but the Plaintiff’s employment relationship was inevitable due to the Intervenor’s failure to work without permission. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Intervenor was terminated on October 10, 2018, and the Plaintiff’s employment relationship was terminated by the Intervenor’s intent. Accordingly, the instant review ruling was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor. 2) The Defendant and the Intervenor expressed that the Intervenor’s final intention to dismiss the Intervenor would have no choice but to agree on the employment contract, and that the Intervenor’s dismissal would be terminated if the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed.

On October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that “work in accordance with the existing labor contract” is “work in accordance with the existing labor contract,” unlike the intention of the Plaintiff to avoid liability for dismissal on October 10, 2018, but clearly expressed the Intervenor’s intent to require the preparation of a written resignation and dismiss the Intervenor

However, this is unfair because the intervenor's refusal to modify the labor contract without any justifiable reason, and the reason and time of dismissal have not been notified in writing during the dismissal process.

Therefore, the new trial ruling of this case is rendered.