1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the decision by reexamination are as follows, in addition to the fact that the following grounds (hereinafter “the grounds”) are “the grounds for resignation” as stated in the second sentence 9 of the decision by the court of first instance, and the corresponding part of the decision by the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for resignation. Thus, this part of the decision by the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. In light of the following purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is apparent that the Plaintiff was subject to unfair dismissal from the Intervenor on October 10, 2014 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”). As such, the judgment of the retrial of this case is unlawful.

1) Since the Plaintiff did not state the date of resignation at the time of the preparation of the instant resignation, the instant resignation is null and void since the date of the completion of the employment contract is not specified. 2) The Plaintiff continued to submit the instant resignation, i.e., the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to resign is either by coercion or by declaration of intention of absence.

3) Although benefits paid on October 10, 2014 were unilaterally deposited by the Intervenor to the Plaintiff, it was later deposited in KRW 100,000 from the viewing welfare division on October 24, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s inquiry about the viewing welfare division after the retirement of this case revealed several times that there was no disposition of resignation against the Plaintiff for viewing. The Intervenor’s seal on the part of the user in the letter of resignation did not exist, and the Intervenor returned the letter of resignation to the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor accepted the letter of resignation, and the labor relationship between the Intervenor and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been terminated, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff expressed that the Plaintiff withdrawn his/her intention of resignation at approximately five hours after the submission of the letter of resignation of this case, and (b) the Intervenor’s allegation on October 13, 2014.