Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Involving “Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)” (Unfair Dismissal 197)
- Date2026/02/13 04:05
- Read 214
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “forced resignation (submission of resignation letter).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9001 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.12 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: The employee argued that he merely wrote and submitted a resignation letter because of the employer’s pressure to resign, and that this did not constitute a resignation by mutual agreement. However, ① the employer recommended resignation and the employee, in response, requested eligibility for unemployment benefits; ② it appeared that the employee wrote and submitted the resignation letter based on a mutual agreement between the parties regarding resignation; ③ although the employee claimed that the resignation letter was written under coercion, he failed to prove this by other means; ④ ...
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed that he had no choice but to submit a resignation letter due to the employer’s pressure to resign, and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the circumstances surrounding the submission of the resignation letter, the employee’s subsequent conduct, and the evidence submitted, in order to determine whether the termination of the employment contract constituted a dismissal by the employer or a resignation (mutual termination) by the employee.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“When an employee writes and submits a resignation letter upon the employer’s recommendation, should this be regarded as an unfair dismissal by the employer, or as a voluntary resignation (mutual termination) by the employee?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel found that, when the employer recommended that the employee resign, the employee responded by requesting eligibility for unemployment benefits and continued discussions in the direction of resignation; that it appeared the employee voluntarily wrote and submitted the resignation letter after a consensus had been reached between the parties regarding resignation; that although the employee alleged that there had been ‘coercion,’ he failed to present objective evidence to support this claim; and that, after submitting the resignation letter and completing handover of duties, the employee no longer reported to work and did not raise any objection to dismissal.
In light of the above, the panel held that the termination in this case was not a unilateral dismissal by the employer, but rather a termination of the employment contract based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign, and that it was difficult to deny the legal effect of the resignation letter.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to successfully claim forced resignation, it is not sufficient to rely merely on general recommendations or workplace atmosphere. The employee must secure evidence supporting specific circumstances of coercion (such as abusive language or threats, warnings of dismissal or disadvantage if the resignation letter is not submitted, etc.). It is also important that, even after submitting a resignation letter, the employee immediately protests that it constitutes a dismissal or attempts to retract the resignation, thereby showing consistent conduct. If, instead, the employee completes handover and then stops coming to work, there is a high likelihood that the situation will be assessed as a “voluntary resignation.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when recommending that an employee submit a resignation letter as an alternative to redundancy or disciplinary dismissal, it is necessary to avoid words or actions that could be misunderstood as coercion or threats, and to keep an objective record of the content of discussions and the process leading to agreement. In addition, if, during the resignation recommendation process, the employer and employee specifically discuss matters such as unemployment benefits, the date of termination, and handover plans, and then organize these points in writing or by email, this can help prove the existence of a “mutual termination” in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute.
To prevent this type of unfair dismissal dispute, employers are advised to consult with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance, and to establish procedures for recommending resignation, alternatives to redundancy, and formats for resignation letters and confirmation documents.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that he merely wrote and submitted a resignation letter due to the employer’s pressure to resign and that this did not constitute a resignation by mutual agreement. However, ① the employer recommended that the employee resign, and the employee, in response, requested eligibility for unemployment benefits; ② it appeared that the employee wrote and submitted the resignation letter based on a consensus between the parties regarding resignation; ③ although the employee claimed that the resignation letter was written under coercion, he failed to prove this by other means; and ④ the employee did not report to work after completing handover of duties up to 2–3 July 2025 and did not raise any objection to dismissal with the employer. Considering all of these circumstances together, it is difficult to deny the legal effect of the resignation letter, and it cannot be viewed that there was a dismissal by the employer.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The employee argued that he merely wrote and submitted a resignation letter due to the employer’s pressure to resign and that this did not constitute a resignation by mutual agreement. However, ① the employer recommended that the employee resign, and the employee, in response, requested eligibility for unemployment benefits; ② it appeared that the employee wrote and submitted the resignation letter based on a consensus between the parties regarding resignation; ③ although the employee claimed that the resignation letter was written under coercion, he failed to prove this by other means; and ④ the employee did not report to work after completing handover of duties up to 2–3 July 2025 and did not raise any objection to dismissal with the employer. Considering all of these circumstances together, it is difficult to deny the legal effect of the resignation letter, and it cannot be viewed that there was a dismissal by the employer. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Involving Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Involving Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Original Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Involving Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, forced resignation (submission of resignation letter), 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 Involving Resignation/Mutual Termination (Acceptance of Employer-Proposed Termination Date),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to forced resignation (submission of resignation letter) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “forced resignation (submission of resignation letter).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9001 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.12 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: The employee argued that he merely wrote and submitted a resignation letter because of the employer’s pressure to resign, and that this did not constitute a resignation by mutual agreement. However, ① the employer recommended resignation and the employee, in response, requested eligibility for unemployment benefits; ② it appeared that the employee wrote and submitted the resignation letter based on a mutual agreement between the parties regarding resignation; ③ although the employee claimed that the resignation letter was written under coercion, he failed to prove this by other means; ④ ...
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed that he had no choice but to submit a resignation letter due to the employer’s pressure to resign, and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the circumstances surrounding the submission of the resignation letter, the employee’s subsequent conduct, and the evidence submitted, in order to determine whether the termination of the employment contract constituted a dismissal by the employer or a resignation (mutual termination) by the employee.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“When an employee writes and submits a resignation letter upon the employer’s recommendation, should this be regarded as an unfair dismissal by the employer, or as a voluntary resignation (mutual termination) by the employee?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel found that, when the employer recommended that the employee resign, the employee responded by requesting eligibility for unemployment benefits and continued discussions in the direction of resignation; that it appeared the employee voluntarily wrote and submitted the resignation letter after a consensus had been reached between the parties regarding resignation; that although the employee alleged that there had been ‘coercion,’ he failed to present objective evidence to support this claim; and that, after submitting the resignation letter and completing handover of duties, the employee no longer reported to work and did not raise any objection to dismissal.
In light of the above, the panel held that the termination in this case was not a unilateral dismissal by the employer, but rather a termination of the employment contract based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign, and that it was difficult to deny the legal effect of the resignation letter.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to successfully claim forced resignation, it is not sufficient to rely merely on general recommendations or workplace atmosphere. The employee must secure evidence supporting specific circumstances of coercion (such as abusive language or threats, warnings of dismissal or disadvantage if the resignation letter is not submitted, etc.). It is also important that, even after submitting a resignation letter, the employee immediately protests that it constitutes a dismissal or attempts to retract the resignation, thereby showing consistent conduct. If, instead, the employee completes handover and then stops coming to work, there is a high likelihood that the situation will be assessed as a “voluntary resignation.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when recommending that an employee submit a resignation letter as an alternative to redundancy or disciplinary dismissal, it is necessary to avoid words or actions that could be misunderstood as coercion or threats, and to keep an objective record of the content of discussions and the process leading to agreement. In addition, if, during the resignation recommendation process, the employer and employee specifically discuss matters such as unemployment benefits, the date of termination, and handover plans, and then organize these points in writing or by email, this can help prove the existence of a “mutual termination” in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute.
To prevent this type of unfair dismissal dispute, employers are advised to consult with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance, and to establish procedures for recommending resignation, alternatives to redundancy, and formats for resignation letters and confirmation documents.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that he merely wrote and submitted a resignation letter due to the employer’s pressure to resign and that this did not constitute a resignation by mutual agreement. However, ① the employer recommended that the employee resign, and the employee, in response, requested eligibility for unemployment benefits; ② it appeared that the employee wrote and submitted the resignation letter based on a consensus between the parties regarding resignation; ③ although the employee claimed that the resignation letter was written under coercion, he failed to prove this by other means; and ④ the employee did not report to work after completing handover of duties up to 2–3 July 2025 and did not raise any objection to dismissal with the employer. Considering all of these circumstances together, it is difficult to deny the legal effect of the resignation letter, and it cannot be viewed that there was a dismissal by the employer.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The employee argued that he merely wrote and submitted a resignation letter due to the employer’s pressure to resign and that this did not constitute a resignation by mutual agreement. However, ① the employer recommended that the employee resign, and the employee, in response, requested eligibility for unemployment benefits; ② it appeared that the employee wrote and submitted the resignation letter based on a consensus between the parties regarding resignation; ③ although the employee claimed that the resignation letter was written under coercion, he failed to prove this by other means; and ④ the employee did not report to work after completing handover of duties up to 2–3 July 2025 and did not raise any objection to dismissal with the employer. Considering all of these circumstances together, it is difficult to deny the legal effect of the resignation letter, and it cannot be viewed that there was a dismissal by the employer. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Involving Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Involving Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Original Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Involving Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, forced resignation (submission of resignation letter), 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 Involving Resignation/Mutual Termination (Acceptance of Employer-Proposed Termination Date),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to forced resignation (submission of resignation letter) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
