The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant, who entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff and worked as a medical specialist in C/C/C/C, without any special reason, caused damage to the Plaintiff by failing to leave without permission after submitting the written resignation on December 31, 2018. ① Compensation under Article 661 of the Civil Act (compensation for damages arising from the termination of the employment contract due to the Defendant’s fault or gross negligence) or ② Compensation for property damage (compensation for property damage inflicted on the Plaintiff by intention or gross negligence) prescribed by the rules of employment (compensation for damages incurred to the Plaintiff) or ③ Compensation for damages under Article 750 of the Civil Act (compensation for damages inflicted on the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’

2. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the entire arguments, it is recognized that the plaintiff delayed payment of wages for October and November 2018, and that the defendant submitted to the Changwon Labor Office on November 30, 2018, which is the expiration date of the contract term under the labor contract, a petition for delayed payment of wages, to which the defendant submitted to the Changwon Labor Office for the payment of wages. The plaintiff paid job offer advertisements seeking the salary of a medical specialist within December 20, 2018, and the defendant mentioned "the expiration of the one-month grace period" while submitting a resignation certificate on December 31, 2018.

According to the above facts, it cannot be deemed that the grounds for termination of a labor contract arose from the defendant's unilateral negligence, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant notified the plaintiff of his intention to resign at the time of expiration of the labor contract on November 30, 2018. Thus, it is difficult to view the defendant's refusal to provide labor after December 31, 2018 as an illegal act due to the defendant's intentional or negligent act. Thus, the plaintiff's claim based on this premise is without merit

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.