Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on Voluntary Resignation (Request for Employment at Another Company) (Unfair Dismissal 335)
- Date2026/04/01 04:04
- Read 181
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “voluntary resignation (request for employment at another company).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9292 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.27 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: After submitting a written statement to the employer and while discussing his resignation, the employee received an offer of employment from a new company and, on his own initiative, contacted the employer to request that his resignation date be moved up from the previously discussed 10 December 2025 to 30 November 2025.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case before the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, the central question was whether the employee had voluntarily resigned or had in substance been dismissed by the employer. This is a type of dispute that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice. In particular, where an employee has submitted a resignation letter after receiving a job offer from a new company, it is highly significant that the authenticity of the employee’s intention to resign directly affects the determination of whether there has been an unfair dismissal.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
While discussing his resignation date with the employer after submitting a written statement, the employee had already received an offer of employment from another company. The employee then proactively contacted the employer and requested that the resignation date be moved up from the initially agreed 10 December 2025 to 30 November 2025, and submitted a resignation letter stating “personal reasons such as employment at another company” as the reason for resignation.
Subsequently, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that a manager on the employer’s side had used terms such as “embezzlement” and “theft” to exert psychological pressure, thereby effectively dismissing him. The employer countered that the resignation was voluntary, and the Labor Relations Commission ultimately dismissed the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee, following a job offer from a new company, takes the initiative to request that the resignation date be moved up and submits a resignation letter citing “employment at another company” as the reason, this can be regarded as a de facto dismissal coerced by the employer, or whether it should be viewed as a voluntary resignation by the employee and thus not subject to remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that the employer had not notified the employee of any business-related redundancy or otherwise expressed a unilateral intention to dismiss. Rather, the employee, after submitting a written statement, requested on his own initiative that the resignation date be moved up in line with his re-employment plans; the employee himself clearly wrote “personal reasons such as employment at another company” as the reason for resignation in the resignation letter he submitted; and the manager’s use of terms such as “embezzlement” and “theft” appeared to have been made in the context of emphasizing the need for an amicable resolution in light of relationships with third parties such as apartment residents. It was therefore difficult to conclude that there had been coercion or threats to such an extent that the employee’s freedom of decision-making was completely deprived.
Accordingly, the panel held that the termination in this case was not an unfair dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intention, but rather that the employment relationship had ended through voluntary resignation (uiwon-myeonjik) based on the employee’s own expression of intent to resign.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee personally drafts and submits a resignation letter and explicitly states personal reasons such as “employment at another company” as the ground for resignation, it becomes very difficult to later reverse this before the Labor Relations Commission and claim unfair dismissal. If, while considering resignation, the employee feels that there has been pressure or threats, it is advisable to preserve the relevant conversation details, recordings, and messenger logs where possible, and to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& before hastily submitting a resignation letter.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when discussing an employee’s resignation, it is important to ensure that the procedures and records clearly show that the decision to resign, the resignation date, and the reasons were voluntarily chosen by the employee. In particular, in situations where there are suspicions of misconduct, using expressions such as “embezzlement” or “theft” while encouraging resignation carries a high risk of being misunderstood as coercion or threats. Therefore, fact-finding and procedural steps should be carried out carefully, based on objective materials and written explanations.
To prevent disputes of this kind, it is advisable to clearly document the circumstances leading to the submission of the resignation letter and the process of confirming the employee’s intention, so that the resignation is not later evaluated as an indirect redundancy or a coerced voluntary resignation (uiwon-myeonjik) surrounding a dismissal. Where necessary, relevant Labor Relations Commission precedents and legal principles should be thoroughly reviewed.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
After submitting a written statement to the employer and while discussing his resignation, the employee received an offer of employment from a new company and, on his own initiative, contacted the employer to request that his resignation date be moved up from the previously discussed 10 December 2025 to 30 November 2025. This indicates that the employee was attempting to adjust the timing of his resignation in line with his specific re-employment plans, and it is difficult to view the situation as one in which he was involuntarily forced to resign without any intention to do so. In addition, the resignation letter submitted by the employee clearly states “personal reasons such as employment at another company” as the reason for resignation, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the employment relationship ended pursuant to the employee’s voluntary expression of intent to resign.
The employee argued that the manager used terms such as “embezzlement” and “theft” to exert psychological pressure. However, these remarks appear to have been made when the employee suddenly requested a change in the resignation date, in the course of the employer conveying the view that it would be preferable to complete the resignation process smoothly in consideration of relationships with third parties such as apartment residents. It is difficult to conclude, based on these remarks alone, that there was coercion or threats to such an extent that the employee’s freedom of decision-making was completely deprived.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
After submitting a written statement to the employer and while discussing his resignation, the employee received an offer of employment from a new company and, on his own initiative, contacted the employer to request that his resignation date be moved up from the previously discussed 10 December 2025 to 30 November 2025. This indicates that the employee was attempting to adjust the timing of his resignation in line with his specific re-employment plans, and it is difficult to view the situation as one in which he was involuntarily forced to resign without any intention to do so. In addition, the resignation letter submitted by the employee clearly states “personal reasons such as employment at another company” as the reason for resignation, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the employment relationship ended pursuant to the employee’s voluntary expression of intent to resign.
The employee argued that the manager used terms such as “embezzlement” and “theft” to exert psychological pressure. However, these remarks appear to have been made when the employee suddenly requested a change in the resignation date, in the course of the employer conveying the view that it would be preferable to complete the resignation process smoothly in consideration of relationships with third parties such as apartment residents. It is difficult to conclude, based on these remarks alone, that there was coercion or threats to such an extent that the employee’s freedom of decision-making was completely deprived. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: - Case No.: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: - Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, voluntary resignation (request for employment at another company), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Reassignment and Release from Position (Statements Amid Internal Union Conflict),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to voluntary resignation (request for employment at another company) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Voluntary Resignation (Request for Employment at Another Company).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “voluntary resignation (request for employment at another company).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9292 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.27 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: After submitting a written statement to the employer and while discussing his resignation, the employee received an offer of employment from a new company and, on his own initiative, contacted the employer to request that his resignation date be moved up from the previously discussed 10 December 2025 to 30 November 2025.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case before the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, the central question was whether the employee had voluntarily resigned or had in substance been dismissed by the employer. This is a type of dispute that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice. In particular, where an employee has submitted a resignation letter after receiving a job offer from a new company, it is highly significant that the authenticity of the employee’s intention to resign directly affects the determination of whether there has been an unfair dismissal.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
While discussing his resignation date with the employer after submitting a written statement, the employee had already received an offer of employment from another company. The employee then proactively contacted the employer and requested that the resignation date be moved up from the initially agreed 10 December 2025 to 30 November 2025, and submitted a resignation letter stating “personal reasons such as employment at another company” as the reason for resignation.
Subsequently, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that a manager on the employer’s side had used terms such as “embezzlement” and “theft” to exert psychological pressure, thereby effectively dismissing him. The employer countered that the resignation was voluntary, and the Labor Relations Commission ultimately dismissed the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee, following a job offer from a new company, takes the initiative to request that the resignation date be moved up and submits a resignation letter citing “employment at another company” as the reason, this can be regarded as a de facto dismissal coerced by the employer, or whether it should be viewed as a voluntary resignation by the employee and thus not subject to remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that the employer had not notified the employee of any business-related redundancy or otherwise expressed a unilateral intention to dismiss. Rather, the employee, after submitting a written statement, requested on his own initiative that the resignation date be moved up in line with his re-employment plans; the employee himself clearly wrote “personal reasons such as employment at another company” as the reason for resignation in the resignation letter he submitted; and the manager’s use of terms such as “embezzlement” and “theft” appeared to have been made in the context of emphasizing the need for an amicable resolution in light of relationships with third parties such as apartment residents. It was therefore difficult to conclude that there had been coercion or threats to such an extent that the employee’s freedom of decision-making was completely deprived.
Accordingly, the panel held that the termination in this case was not an unfair dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intention, but rather that the employment relationship had ended through voluntary resignation (uiwon-myeonjik) based on the employee’s own expression of intent to resign.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee personally drafts and submits a resignation letter and explicitly states personal reasons such as “employment at another company” as the ground for resignation, it becomes very difficult to later reverse this before the Labor Relations Commission and claim unfair dismissal. If, while considering resignation, the employee feels that there has been pressure or threats, it is advisable to preserve the relevant conversation details, recordings, and messenger logs where possible, and to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& before hastily submitting a resignation letter.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when discussing an employee’s resignation, it is important to ensure that the procedures and records clearly show that the decision to resign, the resignation date, and the reasons were voluntarily chosen by the employee. In particular, in situations where there are suspicions of misconduct, using expressions such as “embezzlement” or “theft” while encouraging resignation carries a high risk of being misunderstood as coercion or threats. Therefore, fact-finding and procedural steps should be carried out carefully, based on objective materials and written explanations.
To prevent disputes of this kind, it is advisable to clearly document the circumstances leading to the submission of the resignation letter and the process of confirming the employee’s intention, so that the resignation is not later evaluated as an indirect redundancy or a coerced voluntary resignation (uiwon-myeonjik) surrounding a dismissal. Where necessary, relevant Labor Relations Commission precedents and legal principles should be thoroughly reviewed.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
After submitting a written statement to the employer and while discussing his resignation, the employee received an offer of employment from a new company and, on his own initiative, contacted the employer to request that his resignation date be moved up from the previously discussed 10 December 2025 to 30 November 2025. This indicates that the employee was attempting to adjust the timing of his resignation in line with his specific re-employment plans, and it is difficult to view the situation as one in which he was involuntarily forced to resign without any intention to do so. In addition, the resignation letter submitted by the employee clearly states “personal reasons such as employment at another company” as the reason for resignation, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the employment relationship ended pursuant to the employee’s voluntary expression of intent to resign.
The employee argued that the manager used terms such as “embezzlement” and “theft” to exert psychological pressure. However, these remarks appear to have been made when the employee suddenly requested a change in the resignation date, in the course of the employer conveying the view that it would be preferable to complete the resignation process smoothly in consideration of relationships with third parties such as apartment residents. It is difficult to conclude, based on these remarks alone, that there was coercion or threats to such an extent that the employee’s freedom of decision-making was completely deprived.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
After submitting a written statement to the employer and while discussing his resignation, the employee received an offer of employment from a new company and, on his own initiative, contacted the employer to request that his resignation date be moved up from the previously discussed 10 December 2025 to 30 November 2025. This indicates that the employee was attempting to adjust the timing of his resignation in line with his specific re-employment plans, and it is difficult to view the situation as one in which he was involuntarily forced to resign without any intention to do so. In addition, the resignation letter submitted by the employee clearly states “personal reasons such as employment at another company” as the reason for resignation, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the employment relationship ended pursuant to the employee’s voluntary expression of intent to resign.
The employee argued that the manager used terms such as “embezzlement” and “theft” to exert psychological pressure. However, these remarks appear to have been made when the employee suddenly requested a change in the resignation date, in the course of the employer conveying the view that it would be preferable to complete the resignation process smoothly in consideration of relationships with third parties such as apartment residents. It is difficult to conclude, based on these remarks alone, that there was coercion or threats to such an extent that the employee’s freedom of decision-making was completely deprived. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: - Case No.: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: - Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, voluntary resignation (request for employment at another company), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Reassignment and Release from Position (Statements Amid Internal Union Conflict),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to voluntary resignation (request for employment at another company) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Voluntary Resignation (Request for Employment at Another Company).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
