Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Recommended · Inquiry on Unemployment Benefits)” (Unfair Dismissal 387)
- Date2026/04/20 04:08
- Read 161
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (resignation recommended · inquiry on unemployment benefits).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10090 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary: The employee in 2025 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee expressed an intention to resign to a company director, the employee continued to inquire about whether the resignation would be treated as a recommended resignation, the date of separation, and the processing of the separation certificate and loss-of-employment report required for receiving unemployment benefits, and then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. In this case, which was filed as an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, the Commission focused on whether there was in fact a dismissal by the employer, or whether the employment relationship had instead been terminated by the employee’s voluntary resignation.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is “whether, in circumstances where the employee, after expressing an intention to resign, inquired about recommended resignation and the date of separation and requested prompt processing of documents related to unemployment benefits, this can be viewed as an unfair dismissal by the employer, or whether it should be regarded as a voluntary resignation by the employee such that no dismissal exists at all.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee had clearly expressed an intention to resign to a company director on 7 October 2025, that from the following day, 8 October, onward the employee continuously inquired about recommended resignation and the date of separation without expressing any intention to continue the employment contract, and that there were no circumstances indicating that the employee protested the dismissal as unfair, but rather requested prompt processing of the separation certificate and loss-of-employment report for the purpose of receiving unemployment benefits. In light of these circumstances, the panel viewed the employee as having had a definitive intention to terminate the employment relationship on their own.
The panel held that in this case there was in substance no dismissal, and that the employment contract had been terminated by the employee’s voluntary resignation; accordingly, the claim of unfair dismissal was not accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee clearly expresses an intention to resign, even orally, and then takes steps such as requesting consultation on the date of separation, asking whether the resignation will be treated as a recommended resignation, or actively requesting processing of documents for unemployment benefits, the genuineness of the resignation may be acknowledged, making it difficult to later assert unfair dismissal. If the employee wishes to argue that the expression of intent to resign was merely a protest or an emotional outburst, it is important to immediately and clearly express an intention to withdraw it, and, where the employee claims that a dismissal notice was given, to leave a record of any protest or objection to that dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, even where an employee expresses an intention to resign orally, it is helpful for preventing disputes to obtain a written document such as a resignation letter or resignation confirmation clearly stating that intention, and to organize and record the circumstances and date of the resignation, the date of separation, and the reason for separation (whether it is a voluntary resignation or a recommended resignation). In addition, where the situation has elements of recommended resignation or redundancy dismissal, the company should transparently explain the need for restructuring, the process of recommendation, and the compensation terms, and ensure that the procedures and records clearly show that the termination was a mutual termination based on the employee’s voluntary intent.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee expressed an intention to resign to a company director on 7 October 2025. Although the employee claims that this was done as a form of protest, taking into account that from 8 October 2025 onward the employee continuously inquired about recommended resignation and the date of separation, that there is no fact of having protested that the dismissal was unfair, and that the employee requested prompt processing of the separation certificate and loss-of-employment report for receiving unemployment benefits, it is confirmed that the employee had no intention to maintain the employment contract, and it is therefore determined that no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The employee expressed an intention to resign to a company director on 7 October 2025. Although the employee claims that this was done as a form of protest, taking into account that from 8 October 2025 onward the employee continuously inquired about recommended resignation and the date of separation, that there is no fact of having protested that the dismissal was unfair, and that the employee requested prompt processing of the separation certificate and loss-of-employment report for receiving unemployment benefits, it is confirmed that the employee had no intention to maintain the employment contract, and it is therefore determined that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (De Facto Closure of Business)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (resignation recommended · inquiry on unemployment benefits), 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (De Facto Closure of Business)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (resignation recommended · inquiry on unemployment benefits) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Recommended · Inquiry on Unemployment Benefits).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (resignation recommended · inquiry on unemployment benefits).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10090 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary: The employee in 2025 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee expressed an intention to resign to a company director, the employee continued to inquire about whether the resignation would be treated as a recommended resignation, the date of separation, and the processing of the separation certificate and loss-of-employment report required for receiving unemployment benefits, and then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. In this case, which was filed as an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, the Commission focused on whether there was in fact a dismissal by the employer, or whether the employment relationship had instead been terminated by the employee’s voluntary resignation.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is “whether, in circumstances where the employee, after expressing an intention to resign, inquired about recommended resignation and the date of separation and requested prompt processing of documents related to unemployment benefits, this can be viewed as an unfair dismissal by the employer, or whether it should be regarded as a voluntary resignation by the employee such that no dismissal exists at all.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee had clearly expressed an intention to resign to a company director on 7 October 2025, that from the following day, 8 October, onward the employee continuously inquired about recommended resignation and the date of separation without expressing any intention to continue the employment contract, and that there were no circumstances indicating that the employee protested the dismissal as unfair, but rather requested prompt processing of the separation certificate and loss-of-employment report for the purpose of receiving unemployment benefits. In light of these circumstances, the panel viewed the employee as having had a definitive intention to terminate the employment relationship on their own.
The panel held that in this case there was in substance no dismissal, and that the employment contract had been terminated by the employee’s voluntary resignation; accordingly, the claim of unfair dismissal was not accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee clearly expresses an intention to resign, even orally, and then takes steps such as requesting consultation on the date of separation, asking whether the resignation will be treated as a recommended resignation, or actively requesting processing of documents for unemployment benefits, the genuineness of the resignation may be acknowledged, making it difficult to later assert unfair dismissal. If the employee wishes to argue that the expression of intent to resign was merely a protest or an emotional outburst, it is important to immediately and clearly express an intention to withdraw it, and, where the employee claims that a dismissal notice was given, to leave a record of any protest or objection to that dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, even where an employee expresses an intention to resign orally, it is helpful for preventing disputes to obtain a written document such as a resignation letter or resignation confirmation clearly stating that intention, and to organize and record the circumstances and date of the resignation, the date of separation, and the reason for separation (whether it is a voluntary resignation or a recommended resignation). In addition, where the situation has elements of recommended resignation or redundancy dismissal, the company should transparently explain the need for restructuring, the process of recommendation, and the compensation terms, and ensure that the procedures and records clearly show that the termination was a mutual termination based on the employee’s voluntary intent.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee expressed an intention to resign to a company director on 7 October 2025. Although the employee claims that this was done as a form of protest, taking into account that from 8 October 2025 onward the employee continuously inquired about recommended resignation and the date of separation, that there is no fact of having protested that the dismissal was unfair, and that the employee requested prompt processing of the separation certificate and loss-of-employment report for receiving unemployment benefits, it is confirmed that the employee had no intention to maintain the employment contract, and it is therefore determined that no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The employee expressed an intention to resign to a company director on 7 October 2025. Although the employee claims that this was done as a form of protest, taking into account that from 8 October 2025 onward the employee continuously inquired about recommended resignation and the date of separation, that there is no fact of having protested that the dismissal was unfair, and that the employee requested prompt processing of the separation certificate and loss-of-employment report for receiving unemployment benefits, it is confirmed that the employee had no intention to maintain the employment contract, and it is therefore determined that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (De Facto Closure of Business)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (resignation recommended · inquiry on unemployment benefits), 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (De Facto Closure of Business)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (resignation recommended · inquiry on unemployment benefits) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Recommended · Inquiry on Unemployment Benefits).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
