Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Mutual Termination (112 Report · Recommendation to Resign Remark)” (Unfair Dismissal 34)
- Date2026/01/03 19:52
- Read 202
[Case Information]
- Case Title: Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Mutual Termination (112 Report · Recommendation to Resign Remark)” (Unfair Dismissal 1)
- Date of Decision:
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae680 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
26 November 2025
- Summary of Outcome: It was found that an agreement between the parties on termination of the employment relationship (mutual termination) was concluded at the first interview on 14 July 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was handled by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the key issue was whether a mutual termination agreement regarding the end of the employment relationship was reached between the employee and the employer at the first interview. The employee subsequently claimed unfair dismissal and filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, while the employer argued that an agreement to terminate the employment contract had already been concluded at the first interview and that this agreement remained in force thereafter.
As with many unfair dismissal and redundancy cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, this case is a typical example where the boundary between dismissal on the one hand and resignation/mutual termination on the other is in dispute.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is “whether a mutual termination agreement (agreement to resign) regarding the termination of the employment contract was concluded between the employee and the employer at the first interview on 14 July 2025, and whether that agreement was subsequently revoked or rescinded in light of the second interview held on the same day and the events that followed.”
The employee argued that, in substance, there had been a unilateral dismissal by the employer and that the agreement was overturned at the second interview, whereas the employer contended that the employee voluntarily agreed to resign under the mutual agreement and repeatedly expressed this intention to third parties thereafter.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that a mutual termination agreement regarding the end of the employment relationship was concluded between the employer and the employee at the first interview on 14 July 2025; that although the employee claimed that this agreement was revoked or rescinded at the second interview, he submitted no objective evidence or audio recordings to prove this; and that, in light of the facts that he told the police officers who responded to the 112 call that he would “hand over duties to his successor and then take further measures,” and told the public relations committee member that he “intended to wrap things up by the end of the month and leave” and that “a recommendation to resign had been made,”
the panel held that the termination at issue was not a unilateral dismissal by the employer but rather that the employment relationship had ended by mutual termination between the parties.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If, during an interview, an employee makes statements indicating agreement to resign or to a mutual termination of employment, or if the employee repeatedly tells third parties that he or she will “wrap things up and leave by a certain date,” the Labor Relations Commission is likely to recognize a mutual termination even if the employee later alleges unfair dismissal. In addition, if the employee wishes to argue that there was a revocation or withdrawal of the agreement at a second interview, it is essential to preserve objective evidence such as audio recordings, text messages, or emails and to submit these in the event of an actual dispute.
Once a notice of resignation or an expression of intent to agree to mutual termination reaches the employer, the possibility of withdrawal will differ depending on whether it constitutes a notice of termination or an offer of mutual termination. Therefore, rather than impulsively expressing an intention to resign, employees should consider the matter carefully and set out their intention in writing.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, it is important, when discussing resignation or mutual termination, to clearly record in writing the specific terms (last working day, handover period, reason for resignation, etc.) and to have procedures in place to confirm that the employee has voluntarily agreed. It is also advisable to prepare explanatory materials showing how the reason reported for loss of employment insurance coverage (e.g., “voluntary resignation”) corresponds to the actual terms of the agreement, so that, if the employee later claims that “in substance it was a dismissal,” the employer’s position can be supported before the Labor Relations Commission.
Furthermore, in the course of discussions on recommended resignation or mutual termination, care should be taken to avoid leaving circumstances that could give rise to suspicion of excessive pressure or coercion. Employers should plan in advance the place of the interview, the participants, and the content of the discussions, and, where necessary, have a third party present to ensure the fairness of the procedure.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
It is recognized that an agreement between the parties on termination of the employment relationship (mutual termination) was concluded at the first interview on 14 July 2025. The employee claims that, at the second interview on the same day, the agreement on termination of the employment contract reached at the first interview was revoked or rescinded, but he has submitted no objective evidence to support this and, although he claims that an audio recording exists, he has not submitted it. On the contrary, the following circumstances suggest that the agreement on termination of the employment relationship remained in effect: (i) on 14 July 2025, he told the police officers who responded to the 112 call that he would “definitely hand over duties to his successor and then take further measures”; and (ii) on 19 July 2025, he told the public relations committee member that he “intended to wrap things up by the end of the month and leave immediately,” and used the expression that “a recommendation to resign had been made.”
By contrast, when the employer reported the loss of the employee’s employment insurance coverage, it reported the reason for loss as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons.” However, this appears to reflect the fact that the employee failed to comply with the instruction to report to work for the purpose of handing over duties, rather than indicating that the agreement reached at the first interview had been revoked or rescinded. It is difficult to link this circumstance alone to a conclusion that the agreement on termination of the employment contract reached at the first interview was revoked.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
It is recognized that an agreement between the parties on termination of the employment relationship (mutual termination) was concluded at the first interview on 14 July 2025. The employee claims that, at the second interview on the same day, the agreement on termination of the employment contract reached at the first interview was revoked or rescinded, but he has submitted no objective evidence to support this and, although he claims that an audio recording exists, he has not submitted it. On the contrary, the following circumstances suggest that the agreement on termination of the employment relationship remained in effect: (i) on 14 July 2025, he told the police officers who responded to the 112 call that he would “definitely hand over duties to his successor and then take further measures”; and (ii) on 19 July 2025, he told the public relations committee member that he “intended to wrap things up by the end of the month and leave immediately,” and used the expression that “a recommendation to resign had been made.”
By contrast, when the employer reported the loss of the employee’s employment insurance coverage, it reported the reason for loss as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons.” However, this appears to reflect the fact that the employee failed to comply with the instruction to report to work for the purpose of handing over duties, rather than indicating that the agreement reached at the first interview had been revoked or rescinded. It is difficult to link this circumstance alone to a conclusion that the agreement on termination of the employment contract reached at the first interview was revoked. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice to Spouse)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of Decision: – Adjudicating Body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae766 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Comply with Correction Order)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of Decision: – Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae9045 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Refusal to Enter into Full-Amount Management System Employment Contract)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1)”
※ 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 ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Comply with Correction Order)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to mutual termination (112 report · recommendation to resign remark) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Mutual Termination (112 Report · Recommendation to Resign Remark)” page.
[When You Need to Consult a Specialist]
If you require further strategic review in relation to unfair dismissal, redundancy, or disciplinary/dismissal procedures, you will need professional advice based on the specific facts and evidence of your case.
Labor Law Firm Law& draws on extensive experience in unfair dismissal and Labor Relations Commission matters to assist you from identification of the key issues and evidentiary strategy through to the design of settlement and litigation procedures.
If you would like a detailed consultation, please feel free to contact us via the “Consultation and Quote Request” menu at the top of our website.
- Case Title: Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Mutual Termination (112 Report · Recommendation to Resign Remark)” (Unfair Dismissal 1)
- Date of Decision:
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae680 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
26 November 2025
- Summary of Outcome: It was found that an agreement between the parties on termination of the employment relationship (mutual termination) was concluded at the first interview on 14 July 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was handled by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the key issue was whether a mutual termination agreement regarding the end of the employment relationship was reached between the employee and the employer at the first interview. The employee subsequently claimed unfair dismissal and filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, while the employer argued that an agreement to terminate the employment contract had already been concluded at the first interview and that this agreement remained in force thereafter.
As with many unfair dismissal and redundancy cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, this case is a typical example where the boundary between dismissal on the one hand and resignation/mutual termination on the other is in dispute.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is “whether a mutual termination agreement (agreement to resign) regarding the termination of the employment contract was concluded between the employee and the employer at the first interview on 14 July 2025, and whether that agreement was subsequently revoked or rescinded in light of the second interview held on the same day and the events that followed.”
The employee argued that, in substance, there had been a unilateral dismissal by the employer and that the agreement was overturned at the second interview, whereas the employer contended that the employee voluntarily agreed to resign under the mutual agreement and repeatedly expressed this intention to third parties thereafter.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that a mutual termination agreement regarding the end of the employment relationship was concluded between the employer and the employee at the first interview on 14 July 2025; that although the employee claimed that this agreement was revoked or rescinded at the second interview, he submitted no objective evidence or audio recordings to prove this; and that, in light of the facts that he told the police officers who responded to the 112 call that he would “hand over duties to his successor and then take further measures,” and told the public relations committee member that he “intended to wrap things up by the end of the month and leave” and that “a recommendation to resign had been made,”
the panel held that the termination at issue was not a unilateral dismissal by the employer but rather that the employment relationship had ended by mutual termination between the parties.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If, during an interview, an employee makes statements indicating agreement to resign or to a mutual termination of employment, or if the employee repeatedly tells third parties that he or she will “wrap things up and leave by a certain date,” the Labor Relations Commission is likely to recognize a mutual termination even if the employee later alleges unfair dismissal. In addition, if the employee wishes to argue that there was a revocation or withdrawal of the agreement at a second interview, it is essential to preserve objective evidence such as audio recordings, text messages, or emails and to submit these in the event of an actual dispute.
Once a notice of resignation or an expression of intent to agree to mutual termination reaches the employer, the possibility of withdrawal will differ depending on whether it constitutes a notice of termination or an offer of mutual termination. Therefore, rather than impulsively expressing an intention to resign, employees should consider the matter carefully and set out their intention in writing.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, it is important, when discussing resignation or mutual termination, to clearly record in writing the specific terms (last working day, handover period, reason for resignation, etc.) and to have procedures in place to confirm that the employee has voluntarily agreed. It is also advisable to prepare explanatory materials showing how the reason reported for loss of employment insurance coverage (e.g., “voluntary resignation”) corresponds to the actual terms of the agreement, so that, if the employee later claims that “in substance it was a dismissal,” the employer’s position can be supported before the Labor Relations Commission.
Furthermore, in the course of discussions on recommended resignation or mutual termination, care should be taken to avoid leaving circumstances that could give rise to suspicion of excessive pressure or coercion. Employers should plan in advance the place of the interview, the participants, and the content of the discussions, and, where necessary, have a third party present to ensure the fairness of the procedure.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
It is recognized that an agreement between the parties on termination of the employment relationship (mutual termination) was concluded at the first interview on 14 July 2025. The employee claims that, at the second interview on the same day, the agreement on termination of the employment contract reached at the first interview was revoked or rescinded, but he has submitted no objective evidence to support this and, although he claims that an audio recording exists, he has not submitted it. On the contrary, the following circumstances suggest that the agreement on termination of the employment relationship remained in effect: (i) on 14 July 2025, he told the police officers who responded to the 112 call that he would “definitely hand over duties to his successor and then take further measures”; and (ii) on 19 July 2025, he told the public relations committee member that he “intended to wrap things up by the end of the month and leave immediately,” and used the expression that “a recommendation to resign had been made.”
By contrast, when the employer reported the loss of the employee’s employment insurance coverage, it reported the reason for loss as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons.” However, this appears to reflect the fact that the employee failed to comply with the instruction to report to work for the purpose of handing over duties, rather than indicating that the agreement reached at the first interview had been revoked or rescinded. It is difficult to link this circumstance alone to a conclusion that the agreement on termination of the employment contract reached at the first interview was revoked.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
It is recognized that an agreement between the parties on termination of the employment relationship (mutual termination) was concluded at the first interview on 14 July 2025. The employee claims that, at the second interview on the same day, the agreement on termination of the employment contract reached at the first interview was revoked or rescinded, but he has submitted no objective evidence to support this and, although he claims that an audio recording exists, he has not submitted it. On the contrary, the following circumstances suggest that the agreement on termination of the employment relationship remained in effect: (i) on 14 July 2025, he told the police officers who responded to the 112 call that he would “definitely hand over duties to his successor and then take further measures”; and (ii) on 19 July 2025, he told the public relations committee member that he “intended to wrap things up by the end of the month and leave immediately,” and used the expression that “a recommendation to resign had been made.”
By contrast, when the employer reported the loss of the employee’s employment insurance coverage, it reported the reason for loss as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons.” However, this appears to reflect the fact that the employee failed to comply with the instruction to report to work for the purpose of handing over duties, rather than indicating that the agreement reached at the first interview had been revoked or rescinded. It is difficult to link this circumstance alone to a conclusion that the agreement on termination of the employment contract reached at the first interview was revoked. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice to Spouse)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of Decision: – Adjudicating Body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae766 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Comply with Correction Order)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of Decision: – Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae9045 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Refusal to Enter into Full-Amount Management System Employment Contract)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1)”
※ 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 ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Comply with Correction Order)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to mutual termination (112 report · recommendation to resign remark) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Mutual Termination (112 Report · Recommendation to Resign Remark)” page.
[When You Need to Consult a Specialist]
If you require further strategic review in relation to unfair dismissal, redundancy, or disciplinary/dismissal procedures, you will need professional advice based on the specific facts and evidence of your case.
Labor Law Firm Law& draws on extensive experience in unfair dismissal and Labor Relations Commission matters to assist you from identification of the key issues and evidentiary strategy through to the design of settlement and litigation procedures.
If you would like a detailed consultation, please feel free to contact us via the “Consultation and Quote Request” menu at the top of our website.
