1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The party status intervenor in the process of the instant review decision is a company that employs 300 full-time workers and engages in the mobile phone case manufacturing business, etc., and the Plaintiff is a person who entered the Intervenor on October 15, 2012 and worked as a vice head in the Management Innovation Headquarters as a management innovation team of the Management Planning Headquarters.

On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Intervenor a resignation statement stating “a recommendation resignation due to the deterioration of company management” (hereinafter “the resignation statement of this case”). On the same day, the Intervenor accepted the resignation statement of this case on the same day, and then dismissed the Plaintiff on August 18, 2014.

On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on August 18, 2014, asserting that the dismissal of the Plaintiff on August 18, 2014 was unfair, but the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on December 19, 2014.

On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal of the National Labor Relations Commission, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on January 20, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that “the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated by agreement termination” on March 9, 20

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the ruling on the reexamination of this case as to whether the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the ruling on reexamination of this case’s reexamination of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s submission of the resignation letter of this case’s resignation, such as forcing the Plaintiff, who had no initial intent of resignation, to submit a letter of resignation, is forced. As such, the Plaintiff’s submission of the resignation letter of this case’s presentation of the resignation letter of this case is invalid as the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention or deception, and thus, the Intervenor’s acceptance of the resignation letter of this case’s resignation and dismissed the Plaintiff on August 18, 2014.