The case holding that the plaintiff's expression of intention to resign does not constitute a false declaration of intention when the plaintiff, who was aware of the Central Information Department's information, was willing to submit a written resignation to the plaintiff who is his employee and was likely to be dismissed accordingly.

The Civil Service Commission decided to take one-month disciplinary action against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff, which was revealed as a result of an exaggerated report and a demand for reprimand by the investigators belonging to the Central Information Department, who had been working as the head of office of Busan Broadcasting Station under the Korean Broadcasting System, on the Plaintiff’s misconduct (the Plaintiff’s misconduct of KRW 200,000 or KRW 300,000 or KRW 300,000 in total with transportation service providers, etc.). However, even though the Civil Service Commission decided to take one-month disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, while explaining the policy and the surrounding circumstances of the president’s dismissal against the Plaintiff and submission of the resignation, if the Plaintiff accepted it and submitted the resignation, it would be deemed that the Plaintiff would be subject to removal if the Plaintiff failed to submit the resignation, taking into account the disadvantage that he would be subject to removal. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s expression of intent, not as a declaration of intention due to the Plaintiff’s internal deliberation.

Article 107 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korean Broadcasting System

Seoul District Court Branch of Seoul District Court (89Gahap8645)

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances.

The defendant's dismissal from office on March 14, 1977 against the plaintiff is confirmed to be invalid.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s 1 and Nonparty 2 were removed from the office of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1’s 7-month office report, and the Plaintiff’s 1-month office’s 7-month office report was issued to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff had no dispute. However, the Plaintiff’s 1-month office and the 1-month office report were issued to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the 1-month office and the 1-month office were no other than the 1-month office’s 7-month office report, and that the 1-month office and the 1-month office were no other than the 1-month office’s 7-month office report to the Plaintiff, and that the 1-month office and the 1-month office were no other than the 1-month office report to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s 1-month office and the 2-month office were no other than the 1-month office report to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this case, even though he did not actually have the intention of resignation, the plaintiff submitted a written resignation statement after hearing from the Central Committee of the Central Information Department of the Central Information Agency, which was the president of the defendant Corporation at the time, because he explained the policy to dismiss the plaintiff of the non-party 8, who was the president of the defendant Corporation at the time of his resignation and the surrounding circumstances of the central information department's consent, that he would be dismissed without the plaintiff's resignation. This constitutes a false declaration of intention. Further, since the members of the Central Committee of the defendant Corporation, including the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, knew or could have known that the plaintiff's act of submitting the written resignation was not a true intention, the plaintiff's act of submitting the written resignation was null and void as a false declaration of intention. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above written resignation was null and void as a result of the defendant's disposition of dismissal on March 14, 197. However, according to the above facts of recognition, it cannot be recognized as a different declaration of intention of resignation from the plaintiff's intention of resignation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed without merit. Since the original judgment is unfair with different conclusions and the defendant's appeal against this is reasonable, the original judgment is accepted, and the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the

Judges Jinsung (Presiding Judge)