Corporate trends / Performance record
Determination on Unfair Dismissal Regarding “Existence of Dismissal (Resignation upon Employer’s Recommendation Interview)” (Unfair Dismissal 401)
- Date2026/04/25 04:05
- Read 164
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (resignation upon employer’s recommendation interview).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae10064 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.11 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: In light of the facts that the employee voluntarily determined the date of resignation and inquired about unemployment benefits, that it is difficult to view the interview as having been conducted in a coercive atmosphere, that the employee did not object to the employer’s mention of resignation upon recommendation, that the employee prepared and submitted a resignation confirmation form, and that the employee did not report to work thereafter, the Commission held that no dismissal existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee personally determined the date of resignation, prepared and submitted a resignation confirmation form, and then stopped reporting to work. Thereafter, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission assessed the circumstances of the interview and the employee’s conduct as a whole to determine whether the employer’s conduct constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “where, during an interview in which resignation upon recommendation is mentioned, the employee sets the date of resignation and prepares and submits documents related to resignation, such conduct should be regarded as the employee’s voluntary resignation, or as an unfair dismissal by the employer.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that the employee personally determined the date of resignation and inquired about unemployment benefits, that it was difficult to view the interview as having been conducted in a coercive atmosphere, that the employee did not expressly object to the employer’s mention of resignation upon recommendation, and that, after preparing and submitting a resignation confirmation form, the employee in fact no longer reported to work.
Accordingly, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the disposition in question as a unilateral termination of the employment contract by the employer, and that it should instead be viewed as a resignation based on the employee’s voluntary intent. Therefore, the panel determined that no unfair dismissal existed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that if, during an interview related to resignation upon recommendation or redundancy (collective dismissal), they themselves set the date of resignation and sign a resignation confirmation form, letter of resignation, or similar document, it may be very difficult to later claim that they were “coerced into unfair dismissal” and have that claim accepted.
If, at the time of the interview, it is unclear whether what is being communicated is a notice of dismissal, a mere recommendation, or your own expression of intent to resign, you should immediately express your objection, refrain from preparing or signing any documents, and make a decision only after consulting with an expert such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, during interviews related to resignation upon recommendation or redundancy, it is important to avoid any misunderstanding of coercion by recording the details of the conversation specifically and clearly confirming and preserving evidence that the employee’s choice was voluntary. In particular, if the process by which the resignation date was determined, whether the employee inquired about unemployment benefits, and the circumstances of preparing the resignation confirmation form are clearly documented, this will be of great assistance in substantiating the legitimacy of the employer’s actions in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute before the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevail in this type of case, it is necessary to first understand the relevant legal principles distinguishing unfair dismissal from resignation or termination by mutual agreement, and to have the capacity, starting from the interview stage, to systematically organize and prove the facts in a manner consistent with those legal principles.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the facts that the employee voluntarily determined the date of resignation and inquired about unemployment benefits, that it is difficult to view the interview as having been conducted in a coercive atmosphere, that the employee did not object to the employer’s mention of resignation upon recommendation, that the employee prepared and submitted a resignation confirmation form, and that the employee did not report to work thereafter, the Commission held that no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
Considering that the employee voluntarily determined the date of resignation and inquired about unemployment benefits, that it is difficult to view the interview as having been conducted in a coercive atmosphere, that the employee did not object to the employer’s mention of resignation upon recommendation, that the employee prepared and submitted a resignation confirmation form, and that the employee did not report to work thereafter, the Commission held that no dismissal existed.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Regarding ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone Call)’”
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Regarding ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy (Workout Company)’”
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Regarding ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (resignation upon employer’s recommendation interview), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Regarding ‘Employee Status·Indefinite-Term Contract (Refusal to Renew Freelancer Contract)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (resignation upon employer’s recommendation interview) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Resignation upon Employer’s Recommendation Interview).”
※ 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 (resignation upon employer’s recommendation interview).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae10064 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.11 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: In light of the facts that the employee voluntarily determined the date of resignation and inquired about unemployment benefits, that it is difficult to view the interview as having been conducted in a coercive atmosphere, that the employee did not object to the employer’s mention of resignation upon recommendation, that the employee prepared and submitted a resignation confirmation form, and that the employee did not report to work thereafter, the Commission held that no dismissal existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee personally determined the date of resignation, prepared and submitted a resignation confirmation form, and then stopped reporting to work. Thereafter, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission assessed the circumstances of the interview and the employee’s conduct as a whole to determine whether the employer’s conduct constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “where, during an interview in which resignation upon recommendation is mentioned, the employee sets the date of resignation and prepares and submits documents related to resignation, such conduct should be regarded as the employee’s voluntary resignation, or as an unfair dismissal by the employer.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that the employee personally determined the date of resignation and inquired about unemployment benefits, that it was difficult to view the interview as having been conducted in a coercive atmosphere, that the employee did not expressly object to the employer’s mention of resignation upon recommendation, and that, after preparing and submitting a resignation confirmation form, the employee in fact no longer reported to work.
Accordingly, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the disposition in question as a unilateral termination of the employment contract by the employer, and that it should instead be viewed as a resignation based on the employee’s voluntary intent. Therefore, the panel determined that no unfair dismissal existed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that if, during an interview related to resignation upon recommendation or redundancy (collective dismissal), they themselves set the date of resignation and sign a resignation confirmation form, letter of resignation, or similar document, it may be very difficult to later claim that they were “coerced into unfair dismissal” and have that claim accepted.
If, at the time of the interview, it is unclear whether what is being communicated is a notice of dismissal, a mere recommendation, or your own expression of intent to resign, you should immediately express your objection, refrain from preparing or signing any documents, and make a decision only after consulting with an expert such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, during interviews related to resignation upon recommendation or redundancy, it is important to avoid any misunderstanding of coercion by recording the details of the conversation specifically and clearly confirming and preserving evidence that the employee’s choice was voluntary. In particular, if the process by which the resignation date was determined, whether the employee inquired about unemployment benefits, and the circumstances of preparing the resignation confirmation form are clearly documented, this will be of great assistance in substantiating the legitimacy of the employer’s actions in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute before the Labor Relations Commission.
To prevail in this type of case, it is necessary to first understand the relevant legal principles distinguishing unfair dismissal from resignation or termination by mutual agreement, and to have the capacity, starting from the interview stage, to systematically organize and prove the facts in a manner consistent with those legal principles.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the facts that the employee voluntarily determined the date of resignation and inquired about unemployment benefits, that it is difficult to view the interview as having been conducted in a coercive atmosphere, that the employee did not object to the employer’s mention of resignation upon recommendation, that the employee prepared and submitted a resignation confirmation form, and that the employee did not report to work thereafter, the Commission held that no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
Considering that the employee voluntarily determined the date of resignation and inquired about unemployment benefits, that it is difficult to view the interview as having been conducted in a coercive atmosphere, that the employee did not object to the employer’s mention of resignation upon recommendation, that the employee prepared and submitted a resignation confirmation form, and that the employee did not report to work thereafter, the Commission held that no dismissal existed.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Regarding ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone Call)’”
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Regarding ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy (Workout Company)’”
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Regarding ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (resignation upon employer’s recommendation interview), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Regarding ‘Employee Status·Indefinite-Term Contract (Refusal to Renew Freelancer Contract)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (resignation upon employer’s recommendation interview) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Resignation upon Employer’s Recommendation Interview).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
