beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and those resulting from the intervention in the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is as follows: 6-2, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 21, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 46, 8, 13, 14-15, 22, 23, 5, 3, and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the reason for the court's explanation on this part is as follows: 6-2, 9, 13, 15, 14-15, 22, 23, 5, 3, and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance and as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article; 7, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 20 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful
(a) When the relevant legal principles and key workers have asserted the validity of the dismissal disposition by filing an application for remedy against the unfair dismissal, and the employer has cancelled or cancelled the dismissal disposition and restored the worker, the employee has the purpose of the application for remedy by the withdrawal or cancellation of the dismissal disposition and the realization of the reinstatement, and thus the benefit of remedy ceases to exist as no longer necessary to maintain the procedure for remedy.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7186 delivered on February 8, 2002). The plaintiff withdrawn the dismissal of the intervenor and returned to the intervenor. Thus, the plaintiff does not have any interest in remedy against the intervenor since it is no longer necessary to maintain the procedure for remedy, and therefore, the decision on reexamination of this case is unlawful. As to the plaintiff's decision on reexamination of this case, the defendant asserts that the decision on reexamination of this case is invalid because it is not based on the true intention of the plaintiff'
Therefore, Article 107 of the Civil Act provides that, in principle, a declaration of intention, not a truth, shall take effect, but shall be invalidated when the other party knew or could have known that the other party is not a truth-finding. In this case, the defendant asserted that the order of reinstatement is not a truth-finding, and thus, the validity of the order of reinstatement depends on the plaintiff's intention.
With respect to the existence of an intervenor's interest in relief.