1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the plaintiff's assertion is added.

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion should be revoked on the ground that there exist any unlawful grounds as follows.

(1) The Plaintiff’s resignation did not have arrived at the representative director of the Intervenor, and there was no separate delegation provision regarding the acceptance of the Intervenor’s resignation, and thus the Plaintiff’s resignation did not take effect.

(2) The instant resignation shall be deemed as an offer for termination of the agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

However, the letter of resignation in this case was approved only by the person in charge and the team leader, and on April 10, 2012, the personnel appointment was also made in the name of the team leader of human resources operation of the intervenor, and the approval procedure prescribed in Article 12 of the Rules of Employment was not terminated because the representative director of the intervenor did not take measures to resign.

Ultimately, the Intervenor did not definitely state his/her intent to accept the Plaintiff’s offer to terminate the agreement. On April 6, 2012 or on April 28, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Intervenor to return the instant letter of resignation to the Intervenor, thereby lawfully withdrawing the Intervenor’s offer to terminate the agreement.

B. (1) According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s above assertion, the Intervenor’s overall statement and argument Nos. 13 and 17-1 through 13 as to the Plaintiff’s above assertion, the Intervenor, as a cooperation department, had the human resources management team of the pertinent employee exercise the discretionary power in relation to the human resources management and organization management, such as the resignation of employees, etc., and the head of the headquarters with the head of the branch office approving only the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office when the employees belonging to each branch office submit a resignation document.