Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Voluntary Resignation (Urging by Administrative Manager)” (Unfair Dismissal 52)
- Date2026/01/08 04:09
- Read 215
‘Voluntary Resignation (Urging by Administrative Manager)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 1)
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision on “voluntary resignation (urging by administrative manager)”
- Decision date:
- Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1092 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome: ① The worker claimed that, at the time of drafting the resignation letter, the administrative manager urged him to prepare it, but in light of the worker’s statements at the hearing, it does not appear that there was coercion to the extent of suppressing the worker’s free will; ② there is no objective evidence to consider the expression of intent to resign as having been made under the employer’s duress; ...
1. Legal Implications
I. Overview of the Case
In this case, the worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that the resignation letter he submitted was in substance compelled by the employer. The Labor Relations Commission, however, held that there was no dismissal at all. As in similar unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Central Labor Relations Commission focused on the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the resignation letter and subsequent developments to determine whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or a voluntary resignation.
The worker asserted that the administrative manager urged him to prepare a resignation letter and that, even though he later attempted to withdraw his intention to resign, the company refused to accept this. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the worker voluntarily drafted and submitted the resignation letter, and that the employment relationship lawfully ended upon its acceptance, so the case did not amount to unfair dismissal.
II. Key Issues
The key issue in this case is whether the resignation letter submitted by the worker, in a situation where the administrative manager had urged its preparation, was contrary to the worker’s true intent, and further, whether the worker effectively withdrew his intention to resign such that the matter could be viewed as unfair dismissal (i.e., that a dismissal existed).
III. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that, in light of the worker’s statements at the hearing, it was difficult to regard the administrative manager’s urging of the resignation letter as coercion to the extent of overwhelming the worker’s free will; that there was no objective evidence to consider the expression of intent to resign as having been made under the employer’s duress; and that there was no material supporting the existence of grounds for nullity or rescission of the resignation letter drafted and submitted by the worker, and that, to the contrary, when the circumstances of the interview were considered as a whole, it appeared that the worker himself concluded that resignation was the best option.
The panel further found that there were no circumstances or supporting evidence to consider that the worker withdrew his intention to resign after 13 March 2025, and that, under general legal principles, once a resignation, as a notice of termination by the worker or an offer for termination by mutual agreement, has been validly formed, it is difficult to revoke it unilaterally regardless of whether the employer’s consent or acceptance has reached the worker.
Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the worker voluntarily submitted the resignation letter and the employer accepted it, thereby lawfully terminating the employment relationship between the parties, and therefore that no dismissal existed in this case and it did not fall within the scope of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
IV. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
At the moment a worker submits a resignation letter, it is interpreted under labor law as a notice of termination or an offer for termination by mutual agreement, which can lead to the termination of the employment relationship. Workers should therefore avoid drafting resignation letters hastily in the heat of emotion. If a worker wishes to argue that there was coercion or threats at the time of drafting the resignation letter, or that it was written contrary to his or her true intent, objective evidence such as audio recordings, text or messenger messages, and third-party statements should be secured in advance to increase the likelihood of recognition by the Labor Relations Commission.
In addition, if a worker wishes to retract his or her intention to resign, it is important to leave a clear record of when and by what method the withdrawal was communicated to the employer. In particular, where the resignation takes the form of an offer for termination by mutual agreement, the worker should express the intention to withdraw in a provable manner, such as in writing or by email, before the employer’s declaration of acceptance reaches the worker.
V. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
If a company maintains the practice of formally receiving resignation letters in order to avoid restructuring or collective redundancies, it must be borne in mind that there is a high risk that, in subsequent unfair dismissal disputes, this will be regarded as a dismissal disguised as voluntary resignation. To avoid misunderstandings that there was urging or pressure in the process of submitting the resignation letter, it is important to document the course of interviews, the confirmation of the worker’s voluntary intent, and whether a sufficient cooling-off period was granted, in writing or in interview records.
Furthermore, where a worker explicitly requests withdrawal of his or her intention to resign, the company should examine whether acceptance has already reached the worker and the employment relationship has thereby ended, whether the matter is still at the stage of termination by mutual agreement, and whether there is room to regard it as a notice of termination under Article 660 of the Civil Act. The company should then take measures consistent with the applicable legal principles and internally organize the grounds for its decision.
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The worker claimed that, at the time of drafting the resignation letter, the administrative manager urged him to prepare it. However, in light of the worker’s statements at the hearing, it does not appear that there was coercion to the extent of suppressing the worker’s free will; ② there is no objective evidence to consider the expression of intent to resign as having been made under the employer’s duress; ③ there is no evidence to support that there are grounds for nullity or rescission in respect of the resignation letter drafted and submitted by the worker, and, rather, considering the content of the interview with the administrative manager, it is determined that the worker drafted and submitted the resignation letter having judged that resignation was the best option; ④ there are no circumstances, nor any supporting evidence, to consider that the worker expressed to the employer, after 13 March 2025, an intention to withdraw his intention to resign. Taking all of this into account, the employment relationship between the parties lawfully ended when the worker himself drafted and submitted the resignation letter and the employer accepted it, and therefore no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The worker claimed that, at the time of drafting the resignation letter, the administrative manager urged him to prepare it. However, in light of the worker’s statements at the hearing, it does not appear that there was coercion to the extent of suppressing the worker’s free will; ② there is no objective evidence to consider the expression of intent to resign as having been made under the employer’s duress; ③ there is no evidence to support that there are grounds for nullity or rescission in respect of the resignation letter drafted and submitted by the worker, and, rather, considering the content of the interview with the administrative manager, it is determined that the worker drafted and submitted the resignation letter having judged that resignation was the best option; ④ there are no circumstances, nor any supporting evidence, to consider that the worker expressed to the employer, after 13 March 2025, an intention to withdraw his intention to resign. Taking all of this into account, the employment relationship between the parties lawfully ended when the worker himself drafted and submitted the resignation letter and the employer accepted it, and therefore no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Extinction of Interest in Relief (Order to Return to Work After Withdrawal of Dismissal)” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Existence of Dismissal (Daily Workers Supplied by Manpower Agency)”
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Standing to Sue (Fewer Than Five Employees · Adjacent Corporations)” – Decision date: – Case number: Rejected
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, voluntary resignation (urging by administrative manager), 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair dismissal decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Daily Workers Supplied by Manpower Agency)’”, in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to voluntary resignation (urging by administrative manager) at List of decisions related to voluntary resignation (urging by administrative manager).
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision on “voluntary resignation (urging by administrative manager)”
- Decision date:
- Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1092 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome: ① The worker claimed that, at the time of drafting the resignation letter, the administrative manager urged him to prepare it, but in light of the worker’s statements at the hearing, it does not appear that there was coercion to the extent of suppressing the worker’s free will; ② there is no objective evidence to consider the expression of intent to resign as having been made under the employer’s duress; ...
1. Legal Implications
I. Overview of the Case
In this case, the worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that the resignation letter he submitted was in substance compelled by the employer. The Labor Relations Commission, however, held that there was no dismissal at all. As in similar unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Central Labor Relations Commission focused on the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the resignation letter and subsequent developments to determine whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or a voluntary resignation.
The worker asserted that the administrative manager urged him to prepare a resignation letter and that, even though he later attempted to withdraw his intention to resign, the company refused to accept this. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the worker voluntarily drafted and submitted the resignation letter, and that the employment relationship lawfully ended upon its acceptance, so the case did not amount to unfair dismissal.
II. Key Issues
The key issue in this case is whether the resignation letter submitted by the worker, in a situation where the administrative manager had urged its preparation, was contrary to the worker’s true intent, and further, whether the worker effectively withdrew his intention to resign such that the matter could be viewed as unfair dismissal (i.e., that a dismissal existed).
III. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that, in light of the worker’s statements at the hearing, it was difficult to regard the administrative manager’s urging of the resignation letter as coercion to the extent of overwhelming the worker’s free will; that there was no objective evidence to consider the expression of intent to resign as having been made under the employer’s duress; and that there was no material supporting the existence of grounds for nullity or rescission of the resignation letter drafted and submitted by the worker, and that, to the contrary, when the circumstances of the interview were considered as a whole, it appeared that the worker himself concluded that resignation was the best option.
The panel further found that there were no circumstances or supporting evidence to consider that the worker withdrew his intention to resign after 13 March 2025, and that, under general legal principles, once a resignation, as a notice of termination by the worker or an offer for termination by mutual agreement, has been validly formed, it is difficult to revoke it unilaterally regardless of whether the employer’s consent or acceptance has reached the worker.
Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the worker voluntarily submitted the resignation letter and the employer accepted it, thereby lawfully terminating the employment relationship between the parties, and therefore that no dismissal existed in this case and it did not fall within the scope of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
IV. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
At the moment a worker submits a resignation letter, it is interpreted under labor law as a notice of termination or an offer for termination by mutual agreement, which can lead to the termination of the employment relationship. Workers should therefore avoid drafting resignation letters hastily in the heat of emotion. If a worker wishes to argue that there was coercion or threats at the time of drafting the resignation letter, or that it was written contrary to his or her true intent, objective evidence such as audio recordings, text or messenger messages, and third-party statements should be secured in advance to increase the likelihood of recognition by the Labor Relations Commission.
In addition, if a worker wishes to retract his or her intention to resign, it is important to leave a clear record of when and by what method the withdrawal was communicated to the employer. In particular, where the resignation takes the form of an offer for termination by mutual agreement, the worker should express the intention to withdraw in a provable manner, such as in writing or by email, before the employer’s declaration of acceptance reaches the worker.
V. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
If a company maintains the practice of formally receiving resignation letters in order to avoid restructuring or collective redundancies, it must be borne in mind that there is a high risk that, in subsequent unfair dismissal disputes, this will be regarded as a dismissal disguised as voluntary resignation. To avoid misunderstandings that there was urging or pressure in the process of submitting the resignation letter, it is important to document the course of interviews, the confirmation of the worker’s voluntary intent, and whether a sufficient cooling-off period was granted, in writing or in interview records.
Furthermore, where a worker explicitly requests withdrawal of his or her intention to resign, the company should examine whether acceptance has already reached the worker and the employment relationship has thereby ended, whether the matter is still at the stage of termination by mutual agreement, and whether there is room to regard it as a notice of termination under Article 660 of the Civil Act. The company should then take measures consistent with the applicable legal principles and internally organize the grounds for its decision.
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The worker claimed that, at the time of drafting the resignation letter, the administrative manager urged him to prepare it. However, in light of the worker’s statements at the hearing, it does not appear that there was coercion to the extent of suppressing the worker’s free will; ② there is no objective evidence to consider the expression of intent to resign as having been made under the employer’s duress; ③ there is no evidence to support that there are grounds for nullity or rescission in respect of the resignation letter drafted and submitted by the worker, and, rather, considering the content of the interview with the administrative manager, it is determined that the worker drafted and submitted the resignation letter having judged that resignation was the best option; ④ there are no circumstances, nor any supporting evidence, to consider that the worker expressed to the employer, after 13 March 2025, an intention to withdraw his intention to resign. Taking all of this into account, the employment relationship between the parties lawfully ended when the worker himself drafted and submitted the resignation letter and the employer accepted it, and therefore no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The worker claimed that, at the time of drafting the resignation letter, the administrative manager urged him to prepare it. However, in light of the worker’s statements at the hearing, it does not appear that there was coercion to the extent of suppressing the worker’s free will; ② there is no objective evidence to consider the expression of intent to resign as having been made under the employer’s duress; ③ there is no evidence to support that there are grounds for nullity or rescission in respect of the resignation letter drafted and submitted by the worker, and, rather, considering the content of the interview with the administrative manager, it is determined that the worker drafted and submitted the resignation letter having judged that resignation was the best option; ④ there are no circumstances, nor any supporting evidence, to consider that the worker expressed to the employer, after 13 March 2025, an intention to withdraw his intention to resign. Taking all of this into account, the employment relationship between the parties lawfully ended when the worker himself drafted and submitted the resignation letter and the employer accepted it, and therefore no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Extinction of Interest in Relief (Order to Return to Work After Withdrawal of Dismissal)” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Existence of Dismissal (Daily Workers Supplied by Manpower Agency)”
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Standing to Sue (Fewer Than Five Employees · Adjacent Corporations)” – Decision date: – Case number: Rejected
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, voluntary resignation (urging by administrative manager), 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair dismissal decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Daily Workers Supplied by Manpower Agency)’”, in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to voluntary resignation (urging by administrative manager) at List of decisions related to voluntary resignation (urging by administrative manager).
