Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Agreed Resignation (Probationary Employee)” (Unfair Dismissal 103)
- Date2026/01/13 04:14
- Read 219
[Case Information]
- Case Name: Unfair dismissal decision relating to “agreed resignation (probationary employee)”
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3871 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.18
- Date of Decision:
- Summary of Outcome: ① The employee, in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal remedy application, the key issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the termination of the employee’s employment relationship constituted a dismissal, or whether it was based on mutual agreement following an expression of intent to resign by both the employee and the employer. Ultimately, the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal was not upheld. Based on the Commission’s reasoning and the relevant legal principles, Labor Law Firm Law& sets out below some practical implications that employees and companies can refer to in similar cases.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee in this case, during a probationary period, was repeatedly criticized for poor work performance. In this context, around 3 July 2025, the employee expressed an intention to resign to the employer, and the employer accepted this and appears to have posted a recruitment notice for a replacement that same evening. Subsequently, the employee’s loss of insured status under employment insurance was processed as of 17 July 2025, with the reason for loss reported as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons.” The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where a probationary employee who had been criticized for lack of work ability expressed an intention to resign, the termination of the employment relationship can be regarded as a dismissal, or whether it should be viewed as a resignation based on mutual expressions of intent, such that unfair dismissal is not established.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case took into account, in a comprehensive manner, the following: that around 3 July 2025 the employee expressed an intention to resign to the employer and the employer, upon accepting this, immediately posted a recruitment notice for a replacement; that the employee, as a probationary employee who had been continuously criticized for poor work performance, appears to have voluntarily expressed an intention to resign; that there are indications that around 2 July 2025 the employee responded favorably to a job offer from another company (Y○○); and that the loss of the employee’s insured status under employment insurance was processed as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons.”
The Commission held that no dismissal existed in this case, and therefore the matter did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that, where an expression of intent to resign is not forced against their true will and the circumstances clearly show that the employer accepted such intent, it will generally be recognized as a mutual termination of the employment contract with the employer. In particular, during a probationary or training period, if an employee under pressure due to issues with work performance says “I will quit” or submits a resignation letter, it may be difficult to retract this later. Emotional or impulsive expressions of intent to resign should therefore be avoided as much as possible.
In addition, if the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage is left as “voluntary resignation,” this may operate as an unfavorable circumstance later when asserting dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, where one believes that the situation should in fact be regarded as a dismissal, it is important at an early stage to carefully check how the company has processed the matter, including documents and the reporting details for the four major social insurances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where it is determined that the employee has expressed an intention to resign, it is important to preserve objective records of the specific circumstances and content, by means such as written documents, e‑mails, or messenger messages. In particular, in this case, the fact that a recruitment notice for a replacement was posted immediately after the expression of intent to resign, and that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was consistently processed as voluntary resignation, served as factors supporting the existence of an agreed resignation before the Labor Relations Commission.
Furthermore, even during a probationary period, if the employer intends to terminate the employment relationship not by dismissal but by agreed resignation, it should refrain from excessive pressure or coercion that could undermine the voluntariness of the resignation. The employer should clearly confirm and record the employee’s intent regarding submission of a resignation letter, the resignation date, and the method of processing.
This decision clearly demonstrates, in practical terms, that in an unfair dismissal dispute, the “very existence of a dismissal” must first be recognized for the matter to fall within the remedial jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Commission, and that the circumstances surrounding the expression of intent to resign and the subsequent handling (recruitment of a replacement, employment insurance reporting, etc.) are key materials in determining whether an agreed resignation exists.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account the following circumstances in their entirety: ① when the employee expressed an intention to resign to the employer around 3 July 2025, the employer accepted this and appears to have posted a recruitment notice for a replacement that same evening; ② as a probationary employee, the employee appears to have expressed an intention to resign after being continuously criticized for poor work performance, and around 2 July 2025 had indicated what appeared to be an intention to accept a job offer from Y○○; and ③ the date of loss of the employee’s insured status under employment insurance is 17 July 2025, with the reason for loss stated as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons”; it is determined that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by mutual agreement based on coinciding expressions of intent to resign, and that no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account the following circumstances in their entirety: ① when the employee expressed an intention to resign to the employer around 3 July 2025, the employer accepted this and appears to have posted a recruitment notice for a replacement that same evening; ② as a probationary employee, the employee appears to have expressed an intention to resign after being continuously criticized for poor work performance, and around 2 July 2025 had indicated what appeared to be an intention to accept a job offer from Y○○; and ③ the date of loss of the employee’s insured status under employment insurance is 17 July 2025, with the reason for loss stated as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons”; it is determined that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by mutual agreement based on coinciding expressions of intent to resign, and that no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘expression of intent to resign (resignation remarks during telephone call)’”
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘probationary dismissal (front desk work attitude)’”
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘non‑formation of hiring decision (absence of offer letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, agreed resignation (probationary employee), probationary dismissal, performance evaluation · poor performance, 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, “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘probationary dismissal (front desk work attitude)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to agreed resignation (probationary employee) can be viewed together at “List of decisions relating to agreed resignation (probationary employee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case Name: Unfair dismissal decision relating to “agreed resignation (probationary employee)”
- Case Number: Dismissed
- Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3871 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.18
- Date of Decision:
- Summary of Outcome: ① The employee, in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal remedy application, the key issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the termination of the employee’s employment relationship constituted a dismissal, or whether it was based on mutual agreement following an expression of intent to resign by both the employee and the employer. Ultimately, the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal was not upheld. Based on the Commission’s reasoning and the relevant legal principles, Labor Law Firm Law& sets out below some practical implications that employees and companies can refer to in similar cases.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee in this case, during a probationary period, was repeatedly criticized for poor work performance. In this context, around 3 July 2025, the employee expressed an intention to resign to the employer, and the employer accepted this and appears to have posted a recruitment notice for a replacement that same evening. Subsequently, the employee’s loss of insured status under employment insurance was processed as of 17 July 2025, with the reason for loss reported as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons.” The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where a probationary employee who had been criticized for lack of work ability expressed an intention to resign, the termination of the employment relationship can be regarded as a dismissal, or whether it should be viewed as a resignation based on mutual expressions of intent, such that unfair dismissal is not established.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case took into account, in a comprehensive manner, the following: that around 3 July 2025 the employee expressed an intention to resign to the employer and the employer, upon accepting this, immediately posted a recruitment notice for a replacement; that the employee, as a probationary employee who had been continuously criticized for poor work performance, appears to have voluntarily expressed an intention to resign; that there are indications that around 2 July 2025 the employee responded favorably to a job offer from another company (Y○○); and that the loss of the employee’s insured status under employment insurance was processed as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons.”
The Commission held that no dismissal existed in this case, and therefore the matter did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that, where an expression of intent to resign is not forced against their true will and the circumstances clearly show that the employer accepted such intent, it will generally be recognized as a mutual termination of the employment contract with the employer. In particular, during a probationary or training period, if an employee under pressure due to issues with work performance says “I will quit” or submits a resignation letter, it may be difficult to retract this later. Emotional or impulsive expressions of intent to resign should therefore be avoided as much as possible.
In addition, if the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage is left as “voluntary resignation,” this may operate as an unfavorable circumstance later when asserting dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, where one believes that the situation should in fact be regarded as a dismissal, it is important at an early stage to carefully check how the company has processed the matter, including documents and the reporting details for the four major social insurances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where it is determined that the employee has expressed an intention to resign, it is important to preserve objective records of the specific circumstances and content, by means such as written documents, e‑mails, or messenger messages. In particular, in this case, the fact that a recruitment notice for a replacement was posted immediately after the expression of intent to resign, and that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was consistently processed as voluntary resignation, served as factors supporting the existence of an agreed resignation before the Labor Relations Commission.
Furthermore, even during a probationary period, if the employer intends to terminate the employment relationship not by dismissal but by agreed resignation, it should refrain from excessive pressure or coercion that could undermine the voluntariness of the resignation. The employer should clearly confirm and record the employee’s intent regarding submission of a resignation letter, the resignation date, and the method of processing.
This decision clearly demonstrates, in practical terms, that in an unfair dismissal dispute, the “very existence of a dismissal” must first be recognized for the matter to fall within the remedial jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Commission, and that the circumstances surrounding the expression of intent to resign and the subsequent handling (recruitment of a replacement, employment insurance reporting, etc.) are key materials in determining whether an agreed resignation exists.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account the following circumstances in their entirety: ① when the employee expressed an intention to resign to the employer around 3 July 2025, the employer accepted this and appears to have posted a recruitment notice for a replacement that same evening; ② as a probationary employee, the employee appears to have expressed an intention to resign after being continuously criticized for poor work performance, and around 2 July 2025 had indicated what appeared to be an intention to accept a job offer from Y○○; and ③ the date of loss of the employee’s insured status under employment insurance is 17 July 2025, with the reason for loss stated as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons”; it is determined that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by mutual agreement based on coinciding expressions of intent to resign, and that no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account the following circumstances in their entirety: ① when the employee expressed an intention to resign to the employer around 3 July 2025, the employer accepted this and appears to have posted a recruitment notice for a replacement that same evening; ② as a probationary employee, the employee appears to have expressed an intention to resign after being continuously criticized for poor work performance, and around 2 July 2025 had indicated what appeared to be an intention to accept a job offer from Y○○; and ③ the date of loss of the employee’s insured status under employment insurance is 17 July 2025, with the reason for loss stated as “voluntary resignation due to personal reasons”; it is determined that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by mutual agreement based on coinciding expressions of intent to resign, and that no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘expression of intent to resign (resignation remarks during telephone call)’”
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘probationary dismissal (front desk work attitude)’”
- “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘non‑formation of hiring decision (absence of offer letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, agreed resignation (probationary employee), probationary dismissal, performance evaluation · poor performance, 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, “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘probationary dismissal (front desk work attitude)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to agreed resignation (probationary employee) can be viewed together at “List of decisions relating to agreed resignation (probationary employee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
