1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all borne by the Plaintiff.

The court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the following additional judgment, and therefore it is identical to the statement in the reasoning column of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The plaintiff asserts that the resignation (Evidence B(Evidence B(3) submitted to the intervenor on November 27, 2013) was made together with other workers by the intervenor's coercion, and thus, it is not based on the plaintiff's intention and is null and void.

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s resignation was prepared by the Intervenor’s coercion. Even if the above resignation was made up by the Intervenor’s coercion, even if it is null and void, the content of the resignation is merely the purport that the Plaintiff retired on December 31, 2013, the period during which the labor contract was terminated, which was agreed with the Intervenor, and therefore, there is no change in the term of the original agreement between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor regardless of the validity of the resignation.

Therefore, the instant employment contract shall be deemed as terminated on May 31, 2014, when the term of the said employment contract expires. Therefore, the Plaintiff has no interest to seek the cancellation of the instant decision on reexamination.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. The plaintiff's appeal disputing this is dismissed as it is without merit.