1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The plaintiff is a company established on February 17, 1995 and engaged in the business of maintaining and managing facilities using approximately 10 full-time workers. The defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the " participant") was employed on October 21, 2013 by entering the plaintiff company as the head of the facility management office.

On July 18, 2017, the Intervenor submitted a written resignation to the Plaintiff, and immediately expressed his/her intent of withdrawal before acceptance, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s dismissal on the ground of the submission of the written resignation constituted unfair dismissal, and filed a request for remedy with the former Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission on September 25, 2017.

On November 1, 2017, the Jeonnam Local Committee deemed that “the dismissal on the ground of the submission of resignation, despite the withdrawal of the intention of resignation, constitutes an unfair dismissal” and accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy.

On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal, applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on December 1, 2017, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry tribunal on February 5, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant decision on review”). On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff received the written decision on review of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 17 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleading, as to the legitimacy of the ruling for reexamination of this case, upon the plaintiff's assertion of the legitimacy of the ruling for reexamination of this case, Eul shall report to the director of the plaintiff company, and upon the plaintiff's submission of a resignation to C, the director of the human resources management team of the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company accepted

Therefore, the labor contract relationship between the plaintiff and the intervenor is terminated by the conclusion of the agreement through the submission of resignation, so it cannot be viewed as unfair dismissal.

On August 14, 2017, before filing an application for remedy with the Jeonnam Labor Relations Commission, the intervenor had already joined and worked for another company, and even though the order of reinstatement was issued in accordance with the first inquiry court, the intervenor is limited to two to three days per week.