1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an incorporated foundation that conducts research and development activities related to the business of the State and local governments, and the Plaintiff was employed as a contract-based researcher by setting the contract term on June 4, 2012 as two years until June 3, 2014.

B. On July 9, 2013, the Plaintiff was responsible for the management of B’s misconduct, a subordinate employee, and submitted the resignation staff. On August 26, 2013, the Defendant accepted the said resignation staff, and was treated by the Defendant as the termination of the employment relationship on July 10, 2013, following the submission of the resignation staff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Even if the Plaintiff’s alleged employee submitted a resignation and offered an offer to terminate the labor contract, the employer’s consent may be withdrawn prior to the employee’s arrival. On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to withdraw his/her resignation orally and by electronic mail to the personnel management officer of the Defendant, and on August 26, 2013, even though the Defendant expressed his/her intention to withdraw his/her resignation again on August 26, 2013, the acceptance of the Plaintiff’s resignation on August 26, 2013 constitutes a de facto dismissal.

Therefore, the Defendant sought confirmation of invalidity of the termination of employment relationship by accepting the Plaintiff’s resignation, and sought payment of 45,960,533 won, such as unpaid wages and retirement allowances, and delayed payment damages.

3. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 1 and evidence Nos. 1 of the judgment, Article 11 of the Defendant’s Personnel Management Regulations provides that a contract is terminated when a contract is submitted to a contracting employee. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that a contract is terminated between the Defendant and the Defendant on July 9, 2012, on which the Plaintiff submitted the resignation to the Defendant. Thus, the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted without further need for determination.

Moreover, according to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, they are as follows.