2010 Gohap1671 Nullification of dismissal

A

B A.

April 22, 2011

April 29, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's dismissal on December 7, 2009 against the plaintiff is confirmed to be null and void.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant company is a corporation engaged in broadcasting business, cultural service business, advertising business, etc., and the plaintiff is a person who joined the defendant company around April 7, 2003 and served as the director-general of the business administration from June 2008 to December 2009.

B. On December 4, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted a resignation letter to C, the actual representative of the Defendant Company, “I want to resign for personal reasons.” Accordingly, the Defendant Company accepted the Plaintiff’s resignation on the 7th of the same month, notified the Plaintiff of this, and then dismissed the Plaintiff on the 21st of the same month.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff shall make all decisions related to the conclusion of the contract for the purchase of a new site for the defendant company to the new site for the defendant company entirely by C, the actual representative of the defendant company, and the plaintiff as a working person in accordance

At the time, the representative director D and the managing director E participated in the contract process, and as a result, the representative director D submitted a resignation in order to show the manner against the plaintiff as a working-level, but it was proposed that the resignation should not be accepted in an absolute manner. As such, the defendant company's termination of the labor contract relationship with the plaintiff in the form of accepting it constitutes a substantial dismissal, and such dismissal is null and void as there is no justifiable reason.

B. As to this, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff, etc. to submit a resignation certificate in order to hold the Defendant liable for a new site purchase agreement, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant Company, without obtaining a resolution of the board of directors or the consent of C, the representative director D and the managing director E at the time, and without obtaining the consent of C, which is the chairperson of the Defendant Company. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff submitted a resignation certificate by recognizing his mistake and the Defendant Company accepted the declaration of resignation, thereby terminating the employment contract

3. Determination

A. In a case where an employer has an employee who has no intention to resign prepare and submit a written resignation and terminate an employment contract by taking the form of a so-called dismissal from office to accept it, it shall be null and void due to the employee’s expression of intention not submitted, and thus, if the employment contract relationship is terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, it shall be deemed as dismissal. However, unless otherwise, the employer accepts the employee’s expression of intention to resign upon the submission of the written resignation and thus the employer’s employment contract relationship between the employer and the employee is terminated by the termination of the agreement, and thus, the employer’s dismissal from office cannot be deemed as dismissal from office. In this context, the expression of intention “in the expression of intention, other than the truth,” refers to the expression of intention of the witness who intends to express a specific expression of intent, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the author is the true and correct person, even if the content of the expression of intention was not expressed by the genuine intent, if it is judged to be the best in the present situation, and thus, it shall not be deemed an expression of intention lacking in its effect (see, etc.).

B. The Plaintiff’s testimony as to the Plaintiff’s resignation is difficult to believe that it was consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion. According to the witness D’s testimony and witness E, the actual representative of the Defendant company is C, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the business related to the purchase of the Defendant company’s new site as of December 4, 2009 with the Director D’s representative director and the regular director E. However, the Plaintiff could not easily be found to have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s resignation was not the first 7th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s resignation, and that the Plaintiff’s resignation was not the first 9th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s resignation at the time of the Plaintiff’s resignation. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s resignation was not the first 9th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s resignation, or that the Plaintiff’s resignation was the first 9th of the Plaintiff’s resignation was the first 7th of the 9th of the 2nd of the 9th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 3rd.

D. Therefore, the labor contract between the plaintiff and the defendant company is terminated by the termination of agreement by submitting a resignation letter to the defendant company and the defendant company.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the judge and the judge;

Judges Park Young-young

Judges Training Sub-Appellant