In its judgment of June 14, 2006 ( 5 AZR 592/05 ), the Fifth Senate confirmed its previous case law, according to which the conclusion of a managing director’s employment contract with an employed employee constitutes, in case of doubt, the implicit termination of the previous employment relationship. According to the wishes of the contracting parties, an employment relationship should not normally continue to exist in addition to the employment relationship. A different interpretation is only possible in exceptional cases for which there must be at least clear evidence. This includes, for example, the transfer of the position of managing director for a short period of time with otherwise unchanged contractual conditions. Against this speaks e.g. B. improving remuneration in the managing director relationship. An employment relationship that has been terminated by mutual agreement will not be revived if the former employee is removed as managing director. According to a ruling by the Sixth Senate of November 23, 2006 ( 6 AZR 394/06 ), the court settlement regarding the termination of the employment relationship concluded as part of a dismissal protection process cannot be successfully challenged by the employee because of an unlawful threat of termination. The employer’s threat of termination may in principle give the employee, who has then agreed to a mutual termination of the employment relationship, the right to challenge his declaration of consent in accordance with. § 123 BGB authorize. However, if the employer has already terminated the contract and a court settlement regarding the termination of the employment relationship is later reached, the employee cannot base a challenge on grounds of unlawful threat on the basis of the previous termination; In this respect, there was no longer any threat at the time the settlement was reached. The Sixth Senate further decided that a court settlement according to Section 278 Para. 6 ZPO in the version valid until August 31, 2004 (now § 278 para. 6 sentence 1 2nd alternative ZPO) also maintains the written form required for termination agreements and fixed-term agreements (§§ 623 BGB, 14 para. 4 TzBfG). . This results from an analogous application of Section 127a BGB. The Law on the Reform of Civil Procedure of July 27, 2001 opened up the possibility, according to Section 278 Para. 6 ZPO, a court settlement can also be concluded in written proceedings. If the parties then accept a written settlement proposal from the court by submitting a written statement to the court and the court issues an order that the settlement has been concluded, this is the same as the protocol in accordance with Section 127a of the German Civil Code (BGB). According to Section 14 Para. 1 Sentence 2 No. 8 TzBfG also provides a factual reason for limiting the employment relationship.