The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is presented to this court, it is justifiable to find facts in the judgment of the court of first instance and make decisions based thereon.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning the instant case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following Paragraph 2 to the judgment on the assertion that the Plaintiff newly submitted or emphasized in the trial at the trial. As such, the reasoning of this court is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The summary of the plaintiff's argument was well known by the plaintiff J that it is difficult to avoid disciplinary action and to avoid disciplinary action when the plaintiff J was exposed to the fact that the plaintiff's act of gambling was discovered in a case where there was a history that the intervenors had been regularly exposed to gambling and received warnings on several occasions. The plaintiff's assertion was submitted a letter of resignation prior to the commencement of the disciplinary procedure as expectation that "if the resignation is accepted as it is, it may not be inevitable if the resignation is returned, it may continue to work."

The Plaintiff’s dismissal through a disciplinary procedure does not require any instruction or coercion to submit a resignation, and it is not necessary for the Intervenor to be aware of the legal meaning and validity of the dismissal. It is deemed that the Intervenor prepared and submitted a resignation document according to his/her person with the intention to be provided with an opportunity for re-inception.

Even if the Intervenor expressed his/her intention not to submit a resignation letter by the Intervenor, the Intervenor did not explicitly inform the Plaintiff of such fact, and subsequently the Intervenor submitted a written confirmation and implemented the retirement allowance settlement procedure. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff knew or could have known that the Intervenor was not a true intention.

Therefore, the labor relations between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor are: the Intervenor submitted a resignation on November 1, 2018; and the Plaintiff submitted a resignation on November 30, 2018.