Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning the Existence of Dismissal (Return of Vehicle and Documents) (Unfair Dismissal 114)
- Date2026/01/15 04:13
- Read 244
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (return of vehicle and documents).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3853 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (1) The employee claimed to have been dismissed, while the employer asserted that the employee voluntarily expressed an intention to resign, and there was no evidence to prove the circumstances at the time; (2) the employee returned the company vehicle and car key, requested the return of all documents previously submitted, and received them all back, with the employer retaining only a copy of the employment contract; (3) the employee left the company with personal belongings without confirming or objecting to any dismissal and did not report to work the following day, etc.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed. The employer, however, argued that the employee had voluntarily expressed an intention to resign and left the company of his own accord. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on the surrounding circumstances at the time to determine whether the termination of the employment contract resulted from dismissal or resignation, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral act of dismissal, or whether it was terminated by the employee’s own expression of intent to resign—in other words, whether a dismissal can be deemed to exist.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer claimed the employee had voluntarily expressed an intention to resign, while the employee claimed to have been dismissed, yet there was no direct evidence to substantiate the circumstances at the time. It further noted that the employee returned the company vehicle and car key, requested the return of all documents he had previously submitted and received them all back, and that the employer retained only a copy of the employment contract. The panel also took into account that the employee left the company after packing his belongings without confirming or objecting to any dismissal and did not report to work the following day.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found it difficult to regard the termination as a unilateral unfair dismissal by the employer. Rather, it held that it was more reasonable to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by the employee’s own expression of intent to resign.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even where the employee subjectively perceives the situation as a dismissal, actions that outwardly appear to constitute a “voluntary resignation”—such as returning a company vehicle, access card, or work equipment; requesting the collective return of submitted documents; and failing to report to work the following day—may work to the employee’s disadvantage when later disputing the existence of dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
If you believe you have been unfairly dismissed, you should immediately preserve evidence of the existence and content of the dismissal notice through recordings, text messages or messenger logs, and emails, and clearly confirm with the company whether you have in fact been dismissed, before preparing an application for remedy to the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, because the core of the dispute often lies in whether the termination of the employment relationship was due to resignation or dismissal, it is essential, in the case of resignation, to secure written evidence such as a resignation letter or confirmation of resignation. In the case of dismissal, the employer should, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal to reduce the likelihood of dispute.
In particular, where there are circumstances suggesting resignation—such as the employee returning a vehicle, keys, and documents and leaving after packing personal belongings—the employer should specifically record and preserve the background and details of the relevant conversations. Such records may serve as important defensive evidence at later stages before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
(© Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the following circumstances—(1) the employee claimed to have been dismissed, while the employer asserted that the employee voluntarily expressed an intention to resign, and there was no evidence to prove the circumstances at the time; (2) the employee returned the vehicle and car key, requested the return of the documents he had submitted, and received them all back, with the employer retaining only a copy of the employment contract; and (3) the employee left the company with his belongings without confirming or objecting to any dismissal and did not report to work the following day—it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the following circumstances—(1) the employee claimed to have been dismissed, while the employer asserted that the employee voluntarily expressed an intention to resign, and there was no evidence to prove the circumstances at the time; (2) the employee returned the vehicle and car key, requested the return of the documents he had submitted, and received them all back, with the employer retaining only a copy of the employment contract; and (3) the employee left the company with his belongings without confirming or objecting to any dismissal and did not report to work the following day—it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (return of vehicle and documents), 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 Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Comply with Superior’s Instructions · Obstruction of Union Activities),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (return of vehicle and documents) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Return of Vehicle and Documents).”
※ 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 (return of vehicle and documents).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae3853 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (1) The employee claimed to have been dismissed, while the employer asserted that the employee voluntarily expressed an intention to resign, and there was no evidence to prove the circumstances at the time; (2) the employee returned the company vehicle and car key, requested the return of all documents previously submitted, and received them all back, with the employer retaining only a copy of the employment contract; (3) the employee left the company with personal belongings without confirming or objecting to any dismissal and did not report to work the following day, etc.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed. The employer, however, argued that the employee had voluntarily expressed an intention to resign and left the company of his own accord. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on the surrounding circumstances at the time to determine whether the termination of the employment contract resulted from dismissal or resignation, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral act of dismissal, or whether it was terminated by the employee’s own expression of intent to resign—in other words, whether a dismissal can be deemed to exist.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer claimed the employee had voluntarily expressed an intention to resign, while the employee claimed to have been dismissed, yet there was no direct evidence to substantiate the circumstances at the time. It further noted that the employee returned the company vehicle and car key, requested the return of all documents he had previously submitted and received them all back, and that the employer retained only a copy of the employment contract. The panel also took into account that the employee left the company after packing his belongings without confirming or objecting to any dismissal and did not report to work the following day.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found it difficult to regard the termination as a unilateral unfair dismissal by the employer. Rather, it held that it was more reasonable to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by the employee’s own expression of intent to resign.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even where the employee subjectively perceives the situation as a dismissal, actions that outwardly appear to constitute a “voluntary resignation”—such as returning a company vehicle, access card, or work equipment; requesting the collective return of submitted documents; and failing to report to work the following day—may work to the employee’s disadvantage when later disputing the existence of dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
If you believe you have been unfairly dismissed, you should immediately preserve evidence of the existence and content of the dismissal notice through recordings, text messages or messenger logs, and emails, and clearly confirm with the company whether you have in fact been dismissed, before preparing an application for remedy to the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, because the core of the dispute often lies in whether the termination of the employment relationship was due to resignation or dismissal, it is essential, in the case of resignation, to secure written evidence such as a resignation letter or confirmation of resignation. In the case of dismissal, the employer should, pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal to reduce the likelihood of dispute.
In particular, where there are circumstances suggesting resignation—such as the employee returning a vehicle, keys, and documents and leaving after packing personal belongings—the employer should specifically record and preserve the background and details of the relevant conversations. Such records may serve as important defensive evidence at later stages before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
(© Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the following circumstances—(1) the employee claimed to have been dismissed, while the employer asserted that the employee voluntarily expressed an intention to resign, and there was no evidence to prove the circumstances at the time; (2) the employee returned the vehicle and car key, requested the return of the documents he had submitted, and received them all back, with the employer retaining only a copy of the employment contract; and (3) the employee left the company with his belongings without confirming or objecting to any dismissal and did not report to work the following day—it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the following circumstances—(1) the employee claimed to have been dismissed, while the employer asserted that the employee voluntarily expressed an intention to resign, and there was no evidence to prove the circumstances at the time; (2) the employee returned the vehicle and car key, requested the return of the documents he had submitted, and received them all back, with the employer retaining only a copy of the employment contract; and (3) the employee left the company with his belongings without confirming or objecting to any dismissal and did not report to work the following day—it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (return of vehicle and documents), 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 Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Failure to Comply with Superior’s Instructions · Obstruction of Union Activities),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (return of vehicle and documents) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Return of Vehicle and Documents).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
