1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant's dismissal on September 6, 2013 against the plaintiff is null and void.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the part corresponding to the main sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment

2. The actual provisions of the Section 11, Chapters 7 through 9: The actual provisions of the Section 13 deleted: “The ordinary researcher who entered into an employment contract with the Defendant,” shall be as follows: (a) the actual provisions of the Section 19, Chapters 16 through 19, on which “The ordinary researcher who entered into an employment contract with the Defendant,” are as follows.

Article 35 subparag. 3 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the dismissal of the Plaintiff shall not be deemed a tort that causes mental distress to the Plaintiff illegally, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The actual content of the Labor Standards Act provides that “The dismissal of the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a tort that causes mental distress to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall not be deemed a tort that causes mental distress to the Plaintiff, on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff or did not go through the pre-announcement period of dismissal even though it was not more than two months after the Plaintiff completed one person’s demonstration and was appointed as a researcher (Article 35 subparag. 3 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “Article 26 of the pre-announcement of dismissal shall not apply to a person who has not been six months as a monthly wage worker).”

As long as the defendant contests the legitimacy of the dismissal of this case, the plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation of the invalidity of dismissal.

In addition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the wages calculated by the rate of KRW 1,500,000 per month within the limit of June 30, 2015, which is the expiration date of the contract term stipulated in the instant appointment contract, from September 7, 2013, the following day of the instant dismissal, to the Plaintiff.

As above, the term of payment is from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015, and the defendant is the plaintiff after the termination of the appointment contract in this case’s articles of incorporation and the instant appointment contract.