Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the Existence of Dismissal (Handwritten Resignation for Job Change) (Unfair Dismissal 298)
- Date2026/03/19 04:13
- Read 213
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (handwritten resignation for job change).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025부해9148 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: □ Whether a dismissal exists. In light of the fact that the employee wrote “job change” (이직) in his own handwriting on the resignation letter he submitted, and that he immediately joined a new company after submitting the resignation letter, it does not appear that the employer forced the employee to submit the resignation letter. The employee merely alleged that the employer coerced him, without providing any proof whatsoever. Accordingly, it is deemed that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s suggestion and the employee’s acceptance, and thus no dismissal exists.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee submitted a resignation letter on his own and then immediately joined another company. Thereafter, he filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission examined whether the key issue was whether the employer had forced the resignation, or whether the employee had voluntarily chosen to change jobs.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee submits a resignation letter in which he has handwritten the term ‘job change’ (이직) and then immediately joins another company, does an employer-initiated dismissal exist, or was the employment contract terminated as a recommended resignation/termination by mutual agreement?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that it was difficult to find that the employer had forced the employee to submit a resignation letter; that the employee himself had handwritten “job change” (이직) on the resignation letter he submitted; and that his conduct—such as immediately joining a new company after submitting the resignation letter—was consistent with a voluntary job change.
Taking into account that the employee merely asserted that “the employer forced” him to resign, without presenting any specific circumstances or evidence of coercion or pressure, the panel concluded that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement, with the employer recommending resignation and the employee accepting it. Accordingly, it held that no dismissal existed in this case. As the very existence of a dismissal was not recognized, the panel further held that there was no need to examine the legitimacy of the dismissal, such as whether it constituted a justified redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is first necessary to sufficiently secure circumstances and materials capable of proving that “a unilateral dismissal by the employer actually occurred.” Where an employee directly drafts and submits a resignation letter, includes wording such as “job change” that suggests a voluntary resignation, and then immediately moves to another company, it will be very difficult at a later stage to have a claim that “the resignation was coerced” accepted.
If you are in a situation where you have no choice but to submit a resignation letter due to the employer’s pressure or coercion, it is important to secure, as promptly as possible, materials that can demonstrate the circumstances of coercion, such as audio recordings, text or messenger records, and schedules and contents of meetings. Before submitting a resignation letter, you should consult with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to check in advance whether the resignation could be evaluated as a dismissal and how to formulate a strategy for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, you must be aware that merely obtaining a resignation letter in form only, in an attempt to avoid the restrictions on dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, may later be re-evaluated by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts as a “sham resignation” or de facto dismissal. In procedures involving resignation or termination by mutual agreement, the circumstances under which the resignation letter was prepared, the process of confirming the employee’s intent to resign, and the employee’s subsequent conduct (such as preparing for a job change) are all assessed comprehensively. Accordingly, keeping objective records such as notes of interview contents, statements on the circumstances of resignation, and emails will help prevent disputes.
In addition, to avoid dismissal-related disputes even after an employee has submitted a resignation letter, employers should ensure procedural transparency by having the employee clearly state the reason for resignation and by granting the employee a sufficient cooling-off period. By obtaining advice from experts who have handled numerous unfair dismissal and redundancy cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and by organizing in advance the criteria distinguishing resignation/termination by mutual agreement from dismissal and the structure of the burden of proof, employers can significantly reduce the risk of future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
□ Whether a dismissal exists. In light of the fact that the employee wrote “job change” (이직) in his own handwriting on the resignation letter he submitted, and that he immediately joined a new company after submitting the resignation letter, it does not appear that the employer forced the employee to submit the resignation letter. The employee merely alleged that the employer coerced him, without providing any proof whatsoever. Accordingly, it is deemed that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s suggestion and the employee’s acceptance, and thus no dismissal exists. Therefore, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal was justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
□ Whether a dismissal exists. In light of the fact that the employee wrote “job change” (이직) in his own handwriting on the resignation letter he submitted, and that he immediately joined a new company after submitting the resignation letter, it does not appear that the employer forced the employee to submit the resignation letter. The employee merely alleged that the employer coerced him, without providing any proof whatsoever. Accordingly, it is deemed that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s suggestion and the employee’s acceptance, and thus no dismissal exists. Therefore, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal was justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Let’s Give Written Notice (Messenger Dismissal)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Calculation of the Number of Regular Employees (Spouse·Clinical Psychologist·Telecommuter)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (handwritten resignation for job change), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Calculation of the Number of Regular Employees (Spouse·Clinical Psychologist·Telecommuter)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (handwritten resignation for job change) at the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Handwritten Resignation for Job Change).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (handwritten resignation for job change).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025부해9148 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: □ Whether a dismissal exists. In light of the fact that the employee wrote “job change” (이직) in his own handwriting on the resignation letter he submitted, and that he immediately joined a new company after submitting the resignation letter, it does not appear that the employer forced the employee to submit the resignation letter. The employee merely alleged that the employer coerced him, without providing any proof whatsoever. Accordingly, it is deemed that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s suggestion and the employee’s acceptance, and thus no dismissal exists.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee submitted a resignation letter on his own and then immediately joined another company. Thereafter, he filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission examined whether the key issue was whether the employer had forced the resignation, or whether the employee had voluntarily chosen to change jobs.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee submits a resignation letter in which he has handwritten the term ‘job change’ (이직) and then immediately joins another company, does an employer-initiated dismissal exist, or was the employment contract terminated as a recommended resignation/termination by mutual agreement?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that it was difficult to find that the employer had forced the employee to submit a resignation letter; that the employee himself had handwritten “job change” (이직) on the resignation letter he submitted; and that his conduct—such as immediately joining a new company after submitting the resignation letter—was consistent with a voluntary job change.
Taking into account that the employee merely asserted that “the employer forced” him to resign, without presenting any specific circumstances or evidence of coercion or pressure, the panel concluded that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement, with the employer recommending resignation and the employee accepting it. Accordingly, it held that no dismissal existed in this case. As the very existence of a dismissal was not recognized, the panel further held that there was no need to examine the legitimacy of the dismissal, such as whether it constituted a justified redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is first necessary to sufficiently secure circumstances and materials capable of proving that “a unilateral dismissal by the employer actually occurred.” Where an employee directly drafts and submits a resignation letter, includes wording such as “job change” that suggests a voluntary resignation, and then immediately moves to another company, it will be very difficult at a later stage to have a claim that “the resignation was coerced” accepted.
If you are in a situation where you have no choice but to submit a resignation letter due to the employer’s pressure or coercion, it is important to secure, as promptly as possible, materials that can demonstrate the circumstances of coercion, such as audio recordings, text or messenger records, and schedules and contents of meetings. Before submitting a resignation letter, you should consult with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to check in advance whether the resignation could be evaluated as a dismissal and how to formulate a strategy for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, you must be aware that merely obtaining a resignation letter in form only, in an attempt to avoid the restrictions on dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, may later be re-evaluated by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts as a “sham resignation” or de facto dismissal. In procedures involving resignation or termination by mutual agreement, the circumstances under which the resignation letter was prepared, the process of confirming the employee’s intent to resign, and the employee’s subsequent conduct (such as preparing for a job change) are all assessed comprehensively. Accordingly, keeping objective records such as notes of interview contents, statements on the circumstances of resignation, and emails will help prevent disputes.
In addition, to avoid dismissal-related disputes even after an employee has submitted a resignation letter, employers should ensure procedural transparency by having the employee clearly state the reason for resignation and by granting the employee a sufficient cooling-off period. By obtaining advice from experts who have handled numerous unfair dismissal and redundancy cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and by organizing in advance the criteria distinguishing resignation/termination by mutual agreement from dismissal and the structure of the burden of proof, employers can significantly reduce the risk of future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
□ Whether a dismissal exists. In light of the fact that the employee wrote “job change” (이직) in his own handwriting on the resignation letter he submitted, and that he immediately joined a new company after submitting the resignation letter, it does not appear that the employer forced the employee to submit the resignation letter. The employee merely alleged that the employer coerced him, without providing any proof whatsoever. Accordingly, it is deemed that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s suggestion and the employee’s acceptance, and thus no dismissal exists. Therefore, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal was justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
□ Whether a dismissal exists. In light of the fact that the employee wrote “job change” (이직) in his own handwriting on the resignation letter he submitted, and that he immediately joined a new company after submitting the resignation letter, it does not appear that the employer forced the employee to submit the resignation letter. The employee merely alleged that the employer coerced him, without providing any proof whatsoever. Accordingly, it is deemed that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s suggestion and the employee’s acceptance, and thus no dismissal exists. Therefore, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal was justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Let’s Give Written Notice (Messenger Dismissal)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Calculation of the Number of Regular Employees (Spouse·Clinical Psychologist·Telecommuter)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (handwritten resignation for job change), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Calculation of the Number of Regular Employees (Spouse·Clinical Psychologist·Telecommuter)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (handwritten resignation for job change) at the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Handwritten Resignation for Job Change).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
