Corporate trends / Performance record
“Withdrawal of Resignation Not Permitted (Oral Resignation)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 112)
- Date2026/01/15 04:04
- Read 222
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “withdrawal of resignation not permitted (oral resignation).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae3706 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: The employee in 2025 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee verbally expressed an intention to resign directly to the employer, then changed their mind and requested withdrawal of the resignation. When the company refused to accept the withdrawal and maintained the termination of the employment relationship, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the legal nature of the employee’s expression of intent to resign and whether it could subsequently be withdrawn.
The core dispute in this case was whether the separation from employment was a voluntary resignation or a dismissal by the employer. This decision is significant in understanding the Labor Relations Commission’s tendencies in similar unfair dismissal disputes.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee, without attaching any particular conditions, directly expresses an intention to resign to the employer and later states that they wish to withdraw that resignation, can the resulting termination of the employment relationship—where the employer does not consent to the withdrawal—be regarded as an unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee expressed an intention to resign directly to the employer on 12 June 2025; that no conditions regarding the timing of resignation, compensation, or the like were attached in the process; and that there was no evidence suggesting that the expression of intent to resign took the form of a formal resignation submitted merely to avoid dismissal, or that it was made under coercion or duress.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the employee’s expression of intent constituted a “notice of termination” (haeyak-ui goji) by which the employee unilaterally terminates the employment contract. Accordingly, once the resignation had been communicated to the employer, even if the employee later requested withdrawal of the resignation, such withdrawal could not readily be recognized without the employer’s consent, and there was no separate act of dismissal by the employer. The employee’s claim of unfair dismissal was therefore rejected.
Relying on the structure of Article 660 of the Civil Act and the legal principles set out in relevant precedents, the Labor Relations Commission reaffirmed that an unconditional expression of intent to resign is, in principle, to be regarded as a notice of termination, and that unilateral withdrawal without the employer’s consent is not permitted in such cases.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that statements such as “I will quit” or other expressions of an intention to resign made in an emotional situation may be legally evaluated as a valid resignation, even in the absence of a separate written document. In particular, where, as in this case, the employee clearly expresses an intention to resign without any conditions regarding timing or compensation, it is likely to be regarded as a notice of termination. In such circumstances, even if the employee later changes their mind, withdrawal of the resignation will be difficult to recognize unless the employer consents.
Accordingly, when you are still in the stage of contemplating resignation, you should avoid making impulsive oral declarations of resignation. Instead, after sufficient consideration, you should set out your intention in writing and, where necessary, clearly specify “from when you will resign” and “under what conditions,” in order to reduce the risk of future disputes. When considering filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is important to organize in detail the facts regarding whether the resignation was truly voluntary, whether there was any pressure or inducement by the company, and whether resignation was encouraged as a means to avoid redundancy or disciplinary dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when an employee expresses an intention to resign, it is important to bear in mind that, in any subsequent dispute, a key issue may be whether that expression constitutes a notice of termination or an offer to terminate by mutual agreement (i.e., a proposal for resignation subject to acceptance). Even where the resignation is oral, employers should record the circumstances, time, and content of the resignation by way of notes, confirmation statements, and the like, and, where possible, implement a reconfirmation process (such as requesting a written resignation, or confirmation by email) so that the employee’s “genuine intention to resign” is clearly documented.
In the context of restructuring or collective redundancies, if, in the course of encouraging employees to resign, the employer collects blanket resignation letters or exerts coercive pressure to resign, the separation may be deemed a dismissal in substance, despite its formal appearance as a resignation, thereby significantly increasing the risk of a finding of unfair dismissal. To have the resignation recognized as a notice of termination, as in this decision, the employer should be able to prove that the resignation was based on the employee’s voluntary and free will, and that there were no separate conditions or inducements by the company. It is therefore advisable to refine HR and labor management systems accordingly.
By obtaining advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and by reviewing in advance the legal principles applicable to each type of termination of employment—resignation, mutual termination, redundancy dismissal, etc.—and aligning internal HR regulations with actual practices, employers can significantly reduce the risk of disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee expressed an intention to resign directly to the employer on 12 June 2025, and, since no particular conditions regarding timing, compensation, or the like were presented in relation to that resignation, the employee’s expression of intent constitutes a resignation in the form of a “notice of termination.” Therefore, even if the employee subsequently communicated to the employer a withdrawal of that resignation, it is difficult to regard the resignation as having been withdrawn in the absence of the employer’s consent, and there is no dismissal by the employer in respect of the employee.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee expressed an intention to resign directly to the employer on 12 June 2025, and, since no particular conditions regarding timing, compensation, or the like were presented in relation to that resignation, the employee’s expression of intent constitutes a resignation in the form of a “notice of termination.” Therefore, even if the employee subsequently communicated to the employer a withdrawal of that resignation, it is difficult to regard the resignation as having been withdrawn in the absence of the employer’s consent, and there is no dismissal by the employer in respect of the employee. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, withdrawal of resignation not permitted (oral resignation), others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Effectiveness of Resignation Letter (Resignation Interview upon Employer’s Recommendation)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision, can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to withdrawal of resignation not permitted (oral resignation) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Withdrawal of Resignation Not Permitted (Oral Resignation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “withdrawal of resignation not permitted (oral resignation).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae3706 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.11.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: The employee in 2025 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee verbally expressed an intention to resign directly to the employer, then changed their mind and requested withdrawal of the resignation. When the company refused to accept the withdrawal and maintained the termination of the employment relationship, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on the legal nature of the employee’s expression of intent to resign and whether it could subsequently be withdrawn.
The core dispute in this case was whether the separation from employment was a voluntary resignation or a dismissal by the employer. This decision is significant in understanding the Labor Relations Commission’s tendencies in similar unfair dismissal disputes.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee, without attaching any particular conditions, directly expresses an intention to resign to the employer and later states that they wish to withdraw that resignation, can the resulting termination of the employment relationship—where the employer does not consent to the withdrawal—be regarded as an unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee expressed an intention to resign directly to the employer on 12 June 2025; that no conditions regarding the timing of resignation, compensation, or the like were attached in the process; and that there was no evidence suggesting that the expression of intent to resign took the form of a formal resignation submitted merely to avoid dismissal, or that it was made under coercion or duress.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the employee’s expression of intent constituted a “notice of termination” (haeyak-ui goji) by which the employee unilaterally terminates the employment contract. Accordingly, once the resignation had been communicated to the employer, even if the employee later requested withdrawal of the resignation, such withdrawal could not readily be recognized without the employer’s consent, and there was no separate act of dismissal by the employer. The employee’s claim of unfair dismissal was therefore rejected.
Relying on the structure of Article 660 of the Civil Act and the legal principles set out in relevant precedents, the Labor Relations Commission reaffirmed that an unconditional expression of intent to resign is, in principle, to be regarded as a notice of termination, and that unilateral withdrawal without the employer’s consent is not permitted in such cases.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that statements such as “I will quit” or other expressions of an intention to resign made in an emotional situation may be legally evaluated as a valid resignation, even in the absence of a separate written document. In particular, where, as in this case, the employee clearly expresses an intention to resign without any conditions regarding timing or compensation, it is likely to be regarded as a notice of termination. In such circumstances, even if the employee later changes their mind, withdrawal of the resignation will be difficult to recognize unless the employer consents.
Accordingly, when you are still in the stage of contemplating resignation, you should avoid making impulsive oral declarations of resignation. Instead, after sufficient consideration, you should set out your intention in writing and, where necessary, clearly specify “from when you will resign” and “under what conditions,” in order to reduce the risk of future disputes. When considering filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is important to organize in detail the facts regarding whether the resignation was truly voluntary, whether there was any pressure or inducement by the company, and whether resignation was encouraged as a means to avoid redundancy or disciplinary dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when an employee expresses an intention to resign, it is important to bear in mind that, in any subsequent dispute, a key issue may be whether that expression constitutes a notice of termination or an offer to terminate by mutual agreement (i.e., a proposal for resignation subject to acceptance). Even where the resignation is oral, employers should record the circumstances, time, and content of the resignation by way of notes, confirmation statements, and the like, and, where possible, implement a reconfirmation process (such as requesting a written resignation, or confirmation by email) so that the employee’s “genuine intention to resign” is clearly documented.
In the context of restructuring or collective redundancies, if, in the course of encouraging employees to resign, the employer collects blanket resignation letters or exerts coercive pressure to resign, the separation may be deemed a dismissal in substance, despite its formal appearance as a resignation, thereby significantly increasing the risk of a finding of unfair dismissal. To have the resignation recognized as a notice of termination, as in this decision, the employer should be able to prove that the resignation was based on the employee’s voluntary and free will, and that there were no separate conditions or inducements by the company. It is therefore advisable to refine HR and labor management systems accordingly.
By obtaining advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and by reviewing in advance the legal principles applicable to each type of termination of employment—resignation, mutual termination, redundancy dismissal, etc.—and aligning internal HR regulations with actual practices, employers can significantly reduce the risk of disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee expressed an intention to resign directly to the employer on 12 June 2025, and, since no particular conditions regarding timing, compensation, or the like were presented in relation to that resignation, the employee’s expression of intent constitutes a resignation in the form of a “notice of termination.” Therefore, even if the employee subsequently communicated to the employer a withdrawal of that resignation, it is difficult to regard the resignation as having been withdrawn in the absence of the employer’s consent, and there is no dismissal by the employer in respect of the employee.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee expressed an intention to resign directly to the employer on 12 June 2025, and, since no particular conditions regarding timing, compensation, or the like were presented in relation to that resignation, the employee’s expression of intent constitutes a resignation in the form of a “notice of termination.” Therefore, even if the employee subsequently communicated to the employer a withdrawal of that resignation, it is difficult to regard the resignation as having been withdrawn in the absence of the employer’s consent, and there is no dismissal by the employer in respect of the employee. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, withdrawal of resignation not permitted (oral resignation), others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Effectiveness of Resignation Letter (Resignation Interview upon Employer’s Recommendation)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision, can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to withdrawal of resignation not permitted (oral resignation) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Withdrawal of Resignation Not Permitted (Oral Resignation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
