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 decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor is a corporation that employs 21 full-time workers and carries out security service business, etc., and the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor on August 25, 2016 and has served as a guard in the Namyang-si C Apartment Complex (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

On August 25, 2016, the date of resignation of the head of the post-office A resident registration number in the name of the head of the post-office, and on April 19, 2018, the date of resignation on August 25, 2016, the personal circumstance of the reason of resignation approved the application for retirement as described above, and the time of the head of the state.

4. 5. Payment of the monthly salary (payment not later than April 28) agreed smoothly and thus no objection is raised.

B. On April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the intervenors a resignation letter (hereinafter “instant resignation”) with the following contents, and the Intervenor paid KRW 3,558,830 to the Plaintiff on April 30, 2018.

C. On May 3, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that “the dismissal made pursuant to the instant resignation is unfair as the Intervenor was ordered to submit the written resignation to the Plaintiff.” However, on June 29, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff submitted the instant resignation to the Plaintiff and thus the relevant employment relationship was terminated under the agreement between the parties, and thus there is no dismissal.”

Gyeonggi-do, 2018, 857).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on July 25, 2018, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on October 22, 2018.

(Central 2018 Sub-Appellant846, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence 12, 15, 16, Eul’s evidence 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings

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

A. The security service contract with the intervenor at the apartment management office of this case where the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vice head attached to the plaintiff's assertion is reinstated to the plaintiff.