1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff as a party to the instant ruling was established on December 17, 2007 and engaged in wholesale and retail business of software and information equipment by employing 16 full-time workers. The Intervenor is a person who entered the Intervenor on September 23, 2013 and worked as the Vice Minister of Business.

On September 23, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with the Intervenor and the annual salary of KRW 33 million, the contract term from September 23, 2013 to December 31, 2013.

On January 8, 2014, C, a director of the Plaintiff, had negotiations on annual salary in 2014 with the Intervenor on January 8, 2014. At the time, there was a growing difference between the position on sales targets, annual salary, etc.

The C director, who, then, retired the Intervenor, called the Intervenor, “I am hye if the Intervenor ceases to enter into the annual salary contract,” and made the Intervenor prepare a written transfer and receipt, and then dismissed the Intervenor.

(2) On February 6, 2014, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor’s recommendation was accepted by the Plaintiff’s retirement recommendation and voluntarily resigned on April 3, 2014.

On April 25, 2014, an intervenor in the review decision by the National Labor Relations Commission was dissatisfied with the above initial trial tribunal, and applied for review to the National Labor Relations Commission on April 25, 2014 (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da424), and the National Labor Relations Commission on June 18, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the above initial trial tribunal and accepted the request for remedy of the intervenor on the ground that the Plaintiff’s recommendation to retire and preparation of a letter of transfer on the ground that it actually terminated employment relations by the Plaintiff’s unilateral intent, not only constitutes dismissal, but also is unfair in violation of the duty to notify in writing under

(hereinafter “instant decision on review”).