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 Plaintiff is a corporation established on January 13, 201 and ordinarily employs ten or more workers, engaging in the business of manufacturing, selling, and lending articles related to education, the business of operating the Internet video website, the publishing business, etc. The Plaintiff is a person who was employed by the Plaintiff on July 18, 201 and worked as a supplementary team.

B. On January 18, 2017, D, the representative of the Plaintiff, complained of difficulties in the management of the company, and demanded the employees to resign, and E, F, G, H, and I, who were the Plaintiff’s employees, submitted a resignation notice on the same day.

C. Although the intervenor did not submit the written resignation, he did not attend the Plaintiff after having talked with D on January 31, 2017.

On April 20, 2017, E, F, G, H, I, J, and the Intervenor filed a request for remedy from unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on April 20, 2017. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the request for remedy from the F on June 20, 2017, dismissed the request for remedy from E, G, H, I, and Intervenor, dismissed the request for remedy from the E, H, I, I, and the Intervenor, and judged that the Plaintiff would be paid the amount equivalent to the wages that the Plaintiff could have been paid if he/she was discharged from his/her office and worked normally during the period of dismissal.

The reason why the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the intervenor's request for remedy was that the plaintiff's employment contract was terminated according to the intervenor's person who is not dismissed in full view of the following: (a) the intervenor had expressed his/her intention to resign in receipt of the payment of unpaid wages to the plaintiff; (b) the objective data on dismissal was not submitted; and (c) the intervenor did not work after the termination of the employment relationship.

E. On August 2, 2017, an intervenor dissatisfied with the initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission by 2017.780.