All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2018, the Defendant is ordinarily employed as the managing body of “B” located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City C and less than five employees.

B. On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a short-term employment contract between the Defendant and the managing director of the said commercial building, setting the term of the employment contract from June 1, 2018 to May 31, 2019, and was employed as the managing director of the said commercial building.

C. The Plaintiff served as the Director of the Management Office by October 16, 2019.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 23, 24, Eul Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff, as the Director of the Management Office, promoted the application for the imposition of late payment charges and the payment order against the occupant company unpaid management expenses, and the Defendant unfairly dismissed the Plaintiff without justifiable grounds and lawful procedures to prevent this from occurring.

Therefore, the dismissal of the defendant against the plaintiff is null and void, and the defendant must pay wages to the plaintiff until the date of reinstatement after dismissal.

B. The defendant did not dismiss the plaintiff and the labor relationship was terminated by the plaintiff's voluntary resignation, and the plaintiff's claim is improper.

In addition, Article 23 (1) of the Labor Standards Act does not apply to the defendant's workplace that employs less than five full-time workers.

3. Determination

A. The grounds for termination of the relevant legal doctrine can be classified into retirement made by the employee’s intent or consent, dismissal made by the employee’s unilateral will against the employee’s will, automatic extinguishment, regardless of the employee’s intent. Of them, dismissal means the termination of all labor contract relations made by the employee’s unilateral will against the employee’s will against the employee’s will, irrespective of the name or procedure which is actually unfavorable to the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da54210, Oct. 26, 1993). Moreover, “the intention” in an expression of intention, other than the truth, is specified.