1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The facts below the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 9, 18, and Eul evidence No. 3.

On September 1, 1999, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company and worked as a technician in charge of the semiconductor Project Division LSI (LSI).

B. On March 19, 2011, the Plaintiff published an opinion advertisement that criticizes the system of excessive benefit sharing (hereinafter “instant opinion advertisement”) in the Cdongbook, and thereafter, on March 19, 201, the Plaintiff prepared a “private post” (hereinafter “instant resignation”) with the following contents, and submitted one copy of each of them to E- general affairs (the head of the manufacturing center), D chief (P Technology Group 1), the superior of the department to which the Plaintiff belongs, and F Standing Director (the head of the PP Technology Group), respectively, and the Defendant Company completed the retirement procedure against the Plaintiff on March 21, 2011.

저 P기술 1그룹 A 책임은, 지난 C자(字), 동아일보(A8면)에 개인적으로 게재한 “G H단체 위원장님께 여쭙는 몇 가지” 제하 의견(意見) 광고로 인해 향후 우리 조직이 혹여 처(處)할 수 있는 위기를 사전에 차단하고, 그 동안 열심히 하여 오신 G H단체 위원장께 뼈저린 아픔을 드린 것에 대한 저의 책임을 다하기 위해 이와 같이 사직(辭職)을 청원합니다.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant Company’s assertion that the Plaintiff was invalid is merely an administrative procedure that took place upon the termination of the labor contract, and there is no independent legal meaning. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. In the instant case where, on the premise that the order of retirement to the Plaintiff was an expression of consent to the termination of the employment contract relationship, the Defendant Company’s assertion on the nature and validity of the order of retirement in this case is based on the grounds that the order of retirement in this case would be determined on the merits.