Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the case where the court additionally determines the Plaintiff’s assertion pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)
(2) In addition, the first instance court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion on January 26, 2015, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, is justifiable even if all the evidence presented in the first instance court was examined, the Plaintiff’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion was not identical to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance court, and the Plaintiff’s resignation submitted on January 26, 2015, and the Intervenor was also aware.
However, in light of the details and process of the submission of the above-mentioned resignation by the plaintiff, and the subsequent words and actions, it cannot be deemed as an indication of the truth, and even if it is an indication of the truth, there is no evidence to prove that the intervenor knew or could have known that the above resignation was an indication of the truth, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is
The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the intervenor's acceptance on March 20, 2015, which was 30 days after the 30-day period specified in the employment contract, was null and void.
According to Gap evidence No. 3, where the plaintiff and the intervenor retire while entering into an employment contract, the plaintiff and the intervenor agreed to submit a resignation 30 days prior to the date of the resignation and to retire after the takeover of the business. Such an agreement is at least 30 days prior to the date of retirement when the plaintiff retires according to the plaintiff's intent, and the plaintiff's assertion on this premise is not construed as "the resignation document submitted by the intervenor becomes invalid or 30 days have passed after the plaintiff submitted the resignation document," and thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this premise is not acceptable.