1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to matters added or emphasized by the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant in the trial, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Other contents asserted in the trial of the Defendant and the Intervenor do not significantly differ from the contents of the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion in the trial of the first instance, and even if a new examination is conducted with the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial of the first instance, the fact-finding and determination by the court of the first instance that rejected the Defendant and the Intervenor’s assertion is justifiable). (

A. The summary of the argument by the defendant and the intervenor did not have the intention of resignation but submitted resignation by the plaintiff's intimidation, and the private staff members submitted by the intervenor to the plaintiff prior to the acceptance of the plaintiff's resignation, and submitted the withdrawal letter to the plaintiff before the plaintiff accepted the resignation, the above offer for termination of the agreement was lawfully withdrawn.

Therefore, the decision of the retrial of this case is legitimate.

B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are necessarily submitted due to the plaintiff's intimidation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

In addition, according to the statement No. 6-1 of the evidence No. 6-2, it can be acknowledged that the retired source submitted by the intervenor stated as “I ambied to resign due to the personal circumstances of gold, so I ambied.” According to the above language, it is written as an expression petitioning the plaintiff’s permission.

However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire arguments, are the damages inflicted upon the intervenor to the Plaintiff.