1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company that employs approximately twenty full-time workers and engages in the gambling business, etc.

The plaintiff is a person employed by the intervenor on November 14, 2017 and worked as a park.

B. On May 30, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission that “the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed on May 3, 2018,” with the Intervenor as the respondent, and filed an application for unfair dismissal.

On July 24, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss an application for remedy on the ground that “the intervenor shall not be deemed to have dismissed the plaintiff because the plaintiff was retired after preparing and submitting a resignation staff to the intervenor on May 3, 2018.”

C. On August 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking revocation of the said initial inquiry tribunal.

On November 21, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered an adjudication dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. On February 3, 2018, when the Plaintiff re-employments to the Intervenor on February 2, 2018, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion stated only the “name, reason, presenter, contact number,” and submitted in advance the documents in the form of “private employee” (No. 1) upon the Intervenor’s request as an employee, and did not have any record of preparing and submitting the above resignation.

Since the plaintiff was scheduled to leave the country on November 2018 due to the expiration of the period of stay, there is no reason for the plaintiff to voluntarily submit to the intervenor a resignation and to retire.

The termination of employment contract relations between the plaintiff and the intervenor constitutes dismissal.

(b) An employer shall not dismiss, lay off, suspend, transfer a worker, reduce his/her wages, or take other disciplinary measures without justifiable grounds.

C. The plaintiff is found to have been aware of facts.