Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning the Effectiveness of a Resignation Letter (Recommended Resignation Interview) (Unfair Dismissal 111)
- Date2026/01/14 04:14
- Read 227
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “effectiveness of a resignation letter (recommended resignation interview).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae2039 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter; (ii) during the process of submitting the resignation letter, explanations were provided regarding settlement upon retirement, receipt of job‑seeker’s benefits, and other matters related to retirement; (iii) although the employee argued that the employer’s request for a recommended resignation was unjust, the employee neither refused this request nor asked the employer to withdraw it, so the expression of intent to resign could not be regarded as invalid. Taking these points together, the termination of the employment relationship could not be viewed as having been effected by dismissal...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, following an interview with the company, the employee submitted a handwritten resignation letter, and later filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the circumstances under which the resignation letter was submitted and the explanations given during the interview, and focused its determination on whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the mere fact that the employer requested a recommended resignation is sufficient to regard the employee’s handwritten resignation letter as an expression of intent that does not reflect the employee’s true intention, and thereby to deem the termination of the employment relationship an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that: the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter; during the process of submitting the resignation letter, explanations were provided regarding settlement upon retirement, receipt of job‑seeker’s benefits, and other matters related to retirement; and even if the employee felt at the time that the employer’s request for a recommended resignation was unjust, there was no indication that the employee explicitly refused this request or asked the employer to withdraw it. In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that it was difficult to regard the employee’s expression of intent to resign as invalid due to duress, mistake, or the like.
Accordingly, the Commission held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and that the termination of the employment relationship was due to the employee’s resignation (retirement), not a dismissal, and therefore did not find it to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee submits a handwritten resignation letter and then proceeds with the retirement procedures without any separate expression of intent to withdraw it, it may be very difficult to later challenge the termination as an unfair dismissal. If you consider the employer’s request for a recommended resignation to be unjust, you should immediately and clearly express your refusal, and if you have already submitted a resignation letter, promptly submit a written request to withdraw it so that your intent is clearly recorded.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when conducting discussions on recommended resignation or alternatives to redundancy dismissals, it is important to keep records that can objectively prove that the employee voluntarily drafted the resignation letter and that sufficient explanations were provided regarding procedures such as settlement upon retirement and job‑seeker’s benefits. Even where workforce reductions are necessary due to restructuring or redundancy dismissals, coercive demands for submission of resignation letters can lead to disputes over the genuineness of the resignation. Employers should therefore ensure procedural fairness by providing explanations, engaging in consultation, and allowing a cooling‑off period, and should consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account that: (i) the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter; (ii) during the process of submitting the resignation letter, explanations were provided regarding settlement upon retirement, receipt of job‑seeker’s benefits, and other matters related to retirement; and (iii) although the employee argued that the employer’s request for a recommended resignation was unjust, the employee neither refused this request nor asked the employer to withdraw it, so the expression of intent to resign could not be regarded as invalid, the Commission concluded that the termination of the employment relationship could not be viewed as having been effected by dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Determination
Taking into account that: (i) the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter; (ii) during the process of submitting the resignation letter, explanations were provided regarding settlement upon retirement, receipt of job‑seeker’s benefits, and other matters related to retirement; and (iii) although the employee argued that the employer’s request for a recommended resignation was unjust, the employee neither refused this request nor asked the employer to withdraw it, so the expression of intent to resign could not be regarded as invalid, the Commission concluded that the termination of the employment relationship could not be viewed as having been effected by dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Refusal to Confirm Employment After Probation (1‑Month Probationary Period)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Transfer Order (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Large‑Scale Voluntary Retirement)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, effectiveness of resignation letter (recommended resignation 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Refusal to Confirm Employment After Probation (1‑Month Probationary Period),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the effectiveness of resignation letters (recommended resignation interviews) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to the Effectiveness of Resignation Letters (Recommended Resignation Interview)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “effectiveness of a resignation letter (recommended resignation interview).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae2039 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter; (ii) during the process of submitting the resignation letter, explanations were provided regarding settlement upon retirement, receipt of job‑seeker’s benefits, and other matters related to retirement; (iii) although the employee argued that the employer’s request for a recommended resignation was unjust, the employee neither refused this request nor asked the employer to withdraw it, so the expression of intent to resign could not be regarded as invalid. Taking these points together, the termination of the employment relationship could not be viewed as having been effected by dismissal...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, following an interview with the company, the employee submitted a handwritten resignation letter, and later filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the circumstances under which the resignation letter was submitted and the explanations given during the interview, and focused its determination on whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the mere fact that the employer requested a recommended resignation is sufficient to regard the employee’s handwritten resignation letter as an expression of intent that does not reflect the employee’s true intention, and thereby to deem the termination of the employment relationship an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that: the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter; during the process of submitting the resignation letter, explanations were provided regarding settlement upon retirement, receipt of job‑seeker’s benefits, and other matters related to retirement; and even if the employee felt at the time that the employer’s request for a recommended resignation was unjust, there was no indication that the employee explicitly refused this request or asked the employer to withdraw it. In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that it was difficult to regard the employee’s expression of intent to resign as invalid due to duress, mistake, or the like.
Accordingly, the Commission held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and that the termination of the employment relationship was due to the employee’s resignation (retirement), not a dismissal, and therefore did not find it to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee submits a handwritten resignation letter and then proceeds with the retirement procedures without any separate expression of intent to withdraw it, it may be very difficult to later challenge the termination as an unfair dismissal. If you consider the employer’s request for a recommended resignation to be unjust, you should immediately and clearly express your refusal, and if you have already submitted a resignation letter, promptly submit a written request to withdraw it so that your intent is clearly recorded.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when conducting discussions on recommended resignation or alternatives to redundancy dismissals, it is important to keep records that can objectively prove that the employee voluntarily drafted the resignation letter and that sufficient explanations were provided regarding procedures such as settlement upon retirement and job‑seeker’s benefits. Even where workforce reductions are necessary due to restructuring or redundancy dismissals, coercive demands for submission of resignation letters can lead to disputes over the genuineness of the resignation. Employers should therefore ensure procedural fairness by providing explanations, engaging in consultation, and allowing a cooling‑off period, and should consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account that: (i) the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter; (ii) during the process of submitting the resignation letter, explanations were provided regarding settlement upon retirement, receipt of job‑seeker’s benefits, and other matters related to retirement; and (iii) although the employee argued that the employer’s request for a recommended resignation was unjust, the employee neither refused this request nor asked the employer to withdraw it, so the expression of intent to resign could not be regarded as invalid, the Commission concluded that the termination of the employment relationship could not be viewed as having been effected by dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Determination
Taking into account that: (i) the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter; (ii) during the process of submitting the resignation letter, explanations were provided regarding settlement upon retirement, receipt of job‑seeker’s benefits, and other matters related to retirement; and (iii) although the employee argued that the employer’s request for a recommended resignation was unjust, the employee neither refused this request nor asked the employer to withdraw it, so the expression of intent to resign could not be regarded as invalid, the Commission concluded that the termination of the employment relationship could not be viewed as having been effected by dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Refusal to Confirm Employment After Probation (1‑Month Probationary Period)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Transfer Order (Redeployment of Surplus Personnel After Large‑Scale Voluntary Retirement)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, effectiveness of resignation letter (recommended resignation 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Refusal to Confirm Employment After Probation (1‑Month Probationary Period),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the effectiveness of resignation letters (recommended resignation interviews) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to the Effectiveness of Resignation Letters (Recommended Resignation Interview)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
