Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Handwritten Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 210)
- Date2026/02/17 04:09
- Read 220
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (handwritten resignation letter).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (handwritten resignation letter).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9124 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.11 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee had a conversation with the employer in which they agreed to terminate the employment relationship, and the employee wrote by hand on the resignation letter the reason for resignation, the expected date of resignation, and the date of preparation. In light of these facts, it was found that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, the employee objectively expressed an intention to resign, and there was no deceit or coercion by the employer in relation to that expression of intent. Accordingly, there was no dismissal. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal against the company, claiming unfair dismissal. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employee argued that the resignation letter had been submitted under unavoidable pressure from the employer, whereas the employer contended that the employee had voluntarily resigned and that the employment relationship had thereby ended.
The Labor Relations Commission reached its decision by comprehensively considering the fact that the employee submitted a resignation letter in which the reason for resignation, the expected date of resignation, and the date of preparation were written by hand, as well as the prior conversations between the parties concerning the termination of the employment relationship.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee has prepared and submitted a handwritten resignation letter, the expression of intent to resign is genuine, or whether it is merely a formal resignation induced by the employer’s deceit or coercion and thus, in substance, constitutes a dismissal.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the employee had a conversation with the employer to the effect that they agreed to terminate the employment relationship, that the employee personally wrote by hand on the resignation letter the reason for resignation, the expected date of resignation, and the date of preparation, and that there were no circumstances indicating deceit or coercion by the employer in the process of preparing and submitting the resignation letter.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, the employee had objectively expressed an intention to resign.
Accordingly, the employment contract was deemed to have been terminated in the form of resignation or mutual agreement based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign, and there was no unilateral termination of the employment relationship by the employer constituting a dismissal. The application for remedy for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, under case law and the practical approach of the Labor Relations Commission, submission of a resignation letter is presumed—absent special circumstances—to be a “genuine expression of intent to terminate the employment contract.” If you personally write the reason for resignation and the date of resignation on the letter, and there is a prior context of discussions regarding resignation, it becomes very difficult later to prove the claim that “I was forced to write it and had no choice.”
If, in a situation where you fear redundancy (collective dismissal) or disadvantageous personnel measures, the employer requests that you submit a resignation letter, you should avoid writing it immediately. Instead, record the content of conversations and any pressure (e.g., through notes or recordings), and, if necessary, consult with a specialist such as Labor Law Firm Law& before responding.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to reduce unfair dismissal disputes, it is important that, in resignation or mutual termination procedures, the employee’s voluntary intent be objectively evident. Employers should provide employees with a sufficient period for reflection, have them handwrite the reason for resignation, the date of resignation, and the date of preparation on the resignation letter, and strictly refrain from making threatening remarks or providing information that is untrue during the consultation process.
In addition, when using resignation or voluntary retirement formats in the course of restructuring such as collective redundancies, employers should systematically retain documents such as voluntary resignation notices, explanatory materials, and interview records so that they can prove before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts that the resignation was based on the employee’s true intent. Working with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to prepare and refine manuals for resignation and mutual termination procedures in advance will greatly help prevent disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee had a conversation with the employer in which they agreed to terminate the employment relationship, and the employee wrote by hand on the resignation letter the reason for resignation, the expected date of resignation, and the date of preparation. In light of these facts, it was found that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, the employee objectively expressed an intention to resign, and there was no deceit or coercion by the employer in relation to that expression of intent. Accordingly, there was no dismissal.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee had a conversation with the employer in which they agreed to terminate the employment relationship, and the employee wrote by hand on the resignation letter the reason for resignation, the expected date of resignation, and the date of preparation. In light of these facts, it was found that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, the employee objectively expressed an intention to resign, and there was no deceit or coercion by the employer in relation to that expression of intent. Accordingly, there was no dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Suspicion of False Career History (Inconsistency Between Career Certificate and Health Insurance Records)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - · Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (handwritten resignation letter), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Suspicion of False Career History (Inconsistency Between Career Certificate and Health Insurance Records) Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (handwritten resignation letter) at “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Handwritten Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (handwritten resignation letter).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9124 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.11 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee had a conversation with the employer in which they agreed to terminate the employment relationship, and the employee wrote by hand on the resignation letter the reason for resignation, the expected date of resignation, and the date of preparation. In light of these facts, it was found that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, the employee objectively expressed an intention to resign, and there was no deceit or coercion by the employer in relation to that expression of intent. Accordingly, there was no dismissal. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal against the company, claiming unfair dismissal. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employee argued that the resignation letter had been submitted under unavoidable pressure from the employer, whereas the employer contended that the employee had voluntarily resigned and that the employment relationship had thereby ended.
The Labor Relations Commission reached its decision by comprehensively considering the fact that the employee submitted a resignation letter in which the reason for resignation, the expected date of resignation, and the date of preparation were written by hand, as well as the prior conversations between the parties concerning the termination of the employment relationship.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee has prepared and submitted a handwritten resignation letter, the expression of intent to resign is genuine, or whether it is merely a formal resignation induced by the employer’s deceit or coercion and thus, in substance, constitutes a dismissal.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the employee had a conversation with the employer to the effect that they agreed to terminate the employment relationship, that the employee personally wrote by hand on the resignation letter the reason for resignation, the expected date of resignation, and the date of preparation, and that there were no circumstances indicating deceit or coercion by the employer in the process of preparing and submitting the resignation letter.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, the employee had objectively expressed an intention to resign.
Accordingly, the employment contract was deemed to have been terminated in the form of resignation or mutual agreement based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign, and there was no unilateral termination of the employment relationship by the employer constituting a dismissal. The application for remedy for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, under case law and the practical approach of the Labor Relations Commission, submission of a resignation letter is presumed—absent special circumstances—to be a “genuine expression of intent to terminate the employment contract.” If you personally write the reason for resignation and the date of resignation on the letter, and there is a prior context of discussions regarding resignation, it becomes very difficult later to prove the claim that “I was forced to write it and had no choice.”
If, in a situation where you fear redundancy (collective dismissal) or disadvantageous personnel measures, the employer requests that you submit a resignation letter, you should avoid writing it immediately. Instead, record the content of conversations and any pressure (e.g., through notes or recordings), and, if necessary, consult with a specialist such as Labor Law Firm Law& before responding.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to reduce unfair dismissal disputes, it is important that, in resignation or mutual termination procedures, the employee’s voluntary intent be objectively evident. Employers should provide employees with a sufficient period for reflection, have them handwrite the reason for resignation, the date of resignation, and the date of preparation on the resignation letter, and strictly refrain from making threatening remarks or providing information that is untrue during the consultation process.
In addition, when using resignation or voluntary retirement formats in the course of restructuring such as collective redundancies, employers should systematically retain documents such as voluntary resignation notices, explanatory materials, and interview records so that they can prove before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts that the resignation was based on the employee’s true intent. Working with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to prepare and refine manuals for resignation and mutual termination procedures in advance will greatly help prevent disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee had a conversation with the employer in which they agreed to terminate the employment relationship, and the employee wrote by hand on the resignation letter the reason for resignation, the expected date of resignation, and the date of preparation. In light of these facts, it was found that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, the employee objectively expressed an intention to resign, and there was no deceit or coercion by the employer in relation to that expression of intent. Accordingly, there was no dismissal.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee had a conversation with the employer in which they agreed to terminate the employment relationship, and the employee wrote by hand on the resignation letter the reason for resignation, the expected date of resignation, and the date of preparation. In light of these facts, it was found that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, the employee objectively expressed an intention to resign, and there was no deceit or coercion by the employer in relation to that expression of intent. Accordingly, there was no dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Suspicion of False Career History (Inconsistency Between Career Certificate and Health Insurance Records)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - · Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (handwritten resignation letter), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Suspicion of False Career History (Inconsistency Between Career Certificate and Health Insurance Records) Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (handwritten resignation letter) at “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Handwritten Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
