1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company manufacturing industrial rubber labels, etc., and the Intervenor was employed as a production worker on November 6, 2017, and the Intervenor was employed by the Plaintiff on September 6, 2018. The Plaintiff asserted to the purport that “the Intervenor rejected the Plaintiff’s demand for recommendation on August 10, 2018, the Intervenor dismissed the Intervenor on August 11, 2018,” that “the Intervenor was dismissed on August 11, 2018,” that “the Intervenor sent the notice of dismissal to the Intervenor on September 6, 2018,” that “the Intervenor sent the notice of dismissal to the Intervenor on September 6, 2018,” and that “the dismissal of the Plaintiff on August 11, 2018 without the written notification in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.”

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “the Intervenor retired on August 11, 2018, stating his/her intention that he/she would be subject to recommendation from office, but thereafter there was a dispute over the amount of consolation money thereafter, and the Intervenor finally did not intend to reach an agreement on September 5, 2018, and dismissed the Intervenor on September 6, 2018.”

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, it is recognized that: (a) on August 13, 2018, the Plaintiff ordered the Intervenor to issue a standby order on the ground that the Intervenor was “no fairness to assign him/her as he/she constitutes a person subject to restructuring under the labor-management agreement; and (b) the Intervenor’s eligibility date for the health insurance was changed from “ August 11, 2018” to “ September 7, 2018.”

In full view of the above facts, it is clear that the plaintiff handled the intervenor's retirement on August 11, 2018, but it is also known that the plaintiff issued a standby order on the premise that the intervenor's status is maintained after it was dissatisfy and the intervenor's status is maintained.

Accordingly, if the Plaintiff revised the Intervenor’s date of deprivation of health insurance qualification and sent the notice of dismissal on the same day to “as of September 6, 2018,” this would be new cancellation of the retirement disposition as of August 11, 2018 as the Plaintiff asserted.