Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Existence of Dismissal (Claim of Resignation by Agreement)” (Unfair Dismissal 233)
- Date2026/02/25 04:04
- Read 205
This case is an unfair dismissal precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “existence of dismissal (claim of resignation by agreement).”
[Case Information]
This case concluded with a full win for the employee on the issue of “existence of dismissal (claim of resignation by agreement).”
Adjudicating Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9081 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.27 · Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of dismissal
Although it is acknowledged that the parties discussed the termination of the employee’s employment relationship, the employee asserted that no agreement was reached. In this situation, there was absolutely no evidentiary material to support the employer’s claim that an agreement had been reached with the employee to terminate the employment relationship. In addition, at the Commission’s hearing, the employer personally used the term “dismissal” and testified that they had said, “I will process your separation effective tomorrow,” thereby indicating an intention to unilaterally terminate the employment…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer claimed that the employment relationship was terminated through consultation with the employee, whereas the employee asserted that it was an unfair dismissal against his will and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined (i) whether a dismissal existed and (ii) whether there was a violation of the written-notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. It ultimately recognized the dismissal as unfair and, instead of ordering reinstatement to the original position, issued a monetary compensation order. The Commission found that an appropriate amount of monetary compensation was KRW 14,430,770.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“In a situation where there have been conversations and discussions regarding termination of the employment relationship, can the ‘resignation by agreement’ claimed by the employer be recognized, and does a termination of the employment relationship carried out without separate written notice constitute an unfair dismissal as a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that, although the employer and the employee did discuss termination of the employment relationship, there was absolutely no written or objective evidence proving that the employee voluntarily agreed to resign. At the Commission’s hearing, the employer personally used the expression “dismissal” and testified that they had said, “I will process your separation effective tomorrow,” thereby effectively expressing a unilateral intention to dismiss. Furthermore, despite the existence of a dismissal, there was no written notice at all of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
In light of these factors, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did in fact exist, but that it failed to satisfy the written-notice requirement and therefore did not take legal effect, rendering it unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
In disputes over whether the termination of an employment relationship constitutes a “resignation by agreement” or a “dismissal,” it is important to specifically record what expressions the employer used (e.g., “I will process your separation effective tomorrow”) and whether there was in fact a unilateral instruction.
If there is no written or equivalent evidence such as a dismissal notice, text messages, messenger records, or audio recordings, and if there was no written notice of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, employees should bear in mind that there is a strong basis to challenge the dismissal as unfair before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When terminating an employment relationship, regardless of the label actually used—“resignation,” “post‑interview arrangement,” “termination by agreement,” etc.—employers must always keep in mind that a dispute may later arise as to whether the separation was a voluntary resignation based on the employee’s free will or a unilateral dismissal by the employer.
If an employer intends to rely on resignation by agreement, it must secure written documents such as a resignation letter or an agreement that clearly show the employee’s voluntary intention. Where the situation constitutes a dismissal, the employer must strictly comply with the procedure under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by providing the employee in advance with written notice specifying in detail the reasons for and timing of the dismissal.
The written-notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act is a formal requirement that strictly regulates the manner of dismissal. Employers should note that it is difficult to have legal effect recognized by later preparing written documents retroactively to “cure” a prior defect.
In addition, if a monetary compensation order is issued in the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy procedure and the employer fails to comply, there is a risk of enforcement penalties and even criminal sanctions. From the standpoint of preventing disputes, employers are therefore advised to review and organize their HR and labor regulations and their dismissal/resignation processes in advance.
This unfair dismissal precedent from the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission is a typical case in which the existence of dismissal and the written‑notice requirement are combined. It clearly shows both employees and employers how important it is to correctly understand the basic legal principles related to “unfair dismissal” and to obtain assistance from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the initial response stage.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Dismissal
Although it is acknowledged that the parties in this case discussed the termination of the employee’s employment relationship, in a situation where the employee claims that no agreement was reached, there is absolutely no evidentiary material to support the employer’s claim that an agreement was reached with the employee to terminate the employment relationship. Taking into account also that, at our Commission’s hearing, the employer personally used the term “dismissal” and testified that they had said, “I will process your separation effective tomorrow,” the dismissal in this case is found to exist.
B. Lawfulness of the Dismissal
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, in order for a dismissal of a worker to be effective, the reasons for and timing of the dismissal must be notified in writing. In this case, a dismissal exists, and it is clear that the employer did not notify the employee in writing of this dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal in this case is unfair.
C. Acceptance of Monetary Compensation Order
The employee, pursuant to Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act, seeks monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, and it is determined that there is no relationship of trust sufficient to continue the employment relationship between the employer and the employee. Accordingly, the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order is accepted, and the appropriate amount of monetary compensation is KRW 14,430,770.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Dismissal
Although it is acknowledged that the parties in this case discussed the termination of the employee’s employment relationship, in a situation where the employee claims that no agreement was reached, there is absolutely no evidentiary material to support the employer’s claim that an agreement was reached with the employee to terminate the employment relationship. Taking into account also that, at our Commission’s hearing, the employer personally used the term “dismissal” and testified that they had said, “I will process your separation effective tomorrow,” the dismissal in this case is found to exist.
B. Lawfulness of the Dismissal
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, in order for a dismissal of a worker to be effective, the reasons for and timing of the dismissal must be notified in writing. In this case, a dismissal exists, and it is clear that the employer did not notify the employee in writing of this dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal in this case is unfair.
C. Acceptance of Monetary Compensation Order
The employee, pursuant to Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act, seeks monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, and it is determined that there is no relationship of trust sufficient to continue the employment relationship between the employer and the employee. Accordingly, the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order is accepted, and the appropriate amount of monetary compensation is KRW 14,430,770. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissal of application
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (claim of resignation by agreement), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Interest in Relief · Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Remark: ‘Do Not Come In from Tomorrow’)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to existence of dismissal (claim of resignation by agreement) can be viewed together on the “List of Precedents Related to Existence of Dismissal (Claim of Resignation by Agreement).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concluded with a full win for the employee on the issue of “existence of dismissal (claim of resignation by agreement).”
Adjudicating Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9081 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.27 · Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of dismissal
Although it is acknowledged that the parties discussed the termination of the employee’s employment relationship, the employee asserted that no agreement was reached. In this situation, there was absolutely no evidentiary material to support the employer’s claim that an agreement had been reached with the employee to terminate the employment relationship. In addition, at the Commission’s hearing, the employer personally used the term “dismissal” and testified that they had said, “I will process your separation effective tomorrow,” thereby indicating an intention to unilaterally terminate the employment…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer claimed that the employment relationship was terminated through consultation with the employee, whereas the employee asserted that it was an unfair dismissal against his will and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined (i) whether a dismissal existed and (ii) whether there was a violation of the written-notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. It ultimately recognized the dismissal as unfair and, instead of ordering reinstatement to the original position, issued a monetary compensation order. The Commission found that an appropriate amount of monetary compensation was KRW 14,430,770.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“In a situation where there have been conversations and discussions regarding termination of the employment relationship, can the ‘resignation by agreement’ claimed by the employer be recognized, and does a termination of the employment relationship carried out without separate written notice constitute an unfair dismissal as a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that, although the employer and the employee did discuss termination of the employment relationship, there was absolutely no written or objective evidence proving that the employee voluntarily agreed to resign. At the Commission’s hearing, the employer personally used the expression “dismissal” and testified that they had said, “I will process your separation effective tomorrow,” thereby effectively expressing a unilateral intention to dismiss. Furthermore, despite the existence of a dismissal, there was no written notice at all of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
In light of these factors, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did in fact exist, but that it failed to satisfy the written-notice requirement and therefore did not take legal effect, rendering it unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
In disputes over whether the termination of an employment relationship constitutes a “resignation by agreement” or a “dismissal,” it is important to specifically record what expressions the employer used (e.g., “I will process your separation effective tomorrow”) and whether there was in fact a unilateral instruction.
If there is no written or equivalent evidence such as a dismissal notice, text messages, messenger records, or audio recordings, and if there was no written notice of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, employees should bear in mind that there is a strong basis to challenge the dismissal as unfair before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When terminating an employment relationship, regardless of the label actually used—“resignation,” “post‑interview arrangement,” “termination by agreement,” etc.—employers must always keep in mind that a dispute may later arise as to whether the separation was a voluntary resignation based on the employee’s free will or a unilateral dismissal by the employer.
If an employer intends to rely on resignation by agreement, it must secure written documents such as a resignation letter or an agreement that clearly show the employee’s voluntary intention. Where the situation constitutes a dismissal, the employer must strictly comply with the procedure under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by providing the employee in advance with written notice specifying in detail the reasons for and timing of the dismissal.
The written-notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act is a formal requirement that strictly regulates the manner of dismissal. Employers should note that it is difficult to have legal effect recognized by later preparing written documents retroactively to “cure” a prior defect.
In addition, if a monetary compensation order is issued in the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy procedure and the employer fails to comply, there is a risk of enforcement penalties and even criminal sanctions. From the standpoint of preventing disputes, employers are therefore advised to review and organize their HR and labor regulations and their dismissal/resignation processes in advance.
This unfair dismissal precedent from the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission is a typical case in which the existence of dismissal and the written‑notice requirement are combined. It clearly shows both employees and employers how important it is to correctly understand the basic legal principles related to “unfair dismissal” and to obtain assistance from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the initial response stage.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Dismissal
Although it is acknowledged that the parties in this case discussed the termination of the employee’s employment relationship, in a situation where the employee claims that no agreement was reached, there is absolutely no evidentiary material to support the employer’s claim that an agreement was reached with the employee to terminate the employment relationship. Taking into account also that, at our Commission’s hearing, the employer personally used the term “dismissal” and testified that they had said, “I will process your separation effective tomorrow,” the dismissal in this case is found to exist.
B. Lawfulness of the Dismissal
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, in order for a dismissal of a worker to be effective, the reasons for and timing of the dismissal must be notified in writing. In this case, a dismissal exists, and it is clear that the employer did not notify the employee in writing of this dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal in this case is unfair.
C. Acceptance of Monetary Compensation Order
The employee, pursuant to Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act, seeks monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, and it is determined that there is no relationship of trust sufficient to continue the employment relationship between the employer and the employee. Accordingly, the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order is accepted, and the appropriate amount of monetary compensation is KRW 14,430,770.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Dismissal
Although it is acknowledged that the parties in this case discussed the termination of the employee’s employment relationship, in a situation where the employee claims that no agreement was reached, there is absolutely no evidentiary material to support the employer’s claim that an agreement was reached with the employee to terminate the employment relationship. Taking into account also that, at our Commission’s hearing, the employer personally used the term “dismissal” and testified that they had said, “I will process your separation effective tomorrow,” the dismissal in this case is found to exist.
B. Lawfulness of the Dismissal
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, in order for a dismissal of a worker to be effective, the reasons for and timing of the dismissal must be notified in writing. In this case, a dismissal exists, and it is clear that the employer did not notify the employee in writing of this dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal in this case is unfair.
C. Acceptance of Monetary Compensation Order
The employee, pursuant to Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act, seeks monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, and it is determined that there is no relationship of trust sufficient to continue the employment relationship between the employer and the employee. Accordingly, the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order is accepted, and the appropriate amount of monetary compensation is KRW 14,430,770. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissal of application
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (claim of resignation by agreement), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Interest in Relief · Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Remark: ‘Do Not Come In from Tomorrow’)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to existence of dismissal (claim of resignation by agreement) can be viewed together on the “List of Precedents Related to Existence of Dismissal (Claim of Resignation by Agreement).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
