Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Traffic Accident Interview)” (Unfair Dismissal 200)
- Date2026/02/14 04:04
- Read 241
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (traffic accident interview).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9021 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.12 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: It is reasonable to view that the employment relationship ended because, on August 18, 2025, while the employer was confirming the circumstances of a traffic accident that had occurred the previous day, the employee, of his own volition, handwrote and submitted a resignation letter and then left the company. There are no circumstances to suggest that the employee’s expression of intent to resign was not genuine or was made under duress. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee does not exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal arose after an employee, during an interview with the employer on the day following a traffic accident, wrote and submitted a resignation letter and thereafter claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
After reviewing the employee’s assertions, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on whether the termination of the employment relationship in this case constituted a dismissal by the employer or a voluntary resignation by the employee.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the resignation letter submitted during the interview concerning the traffic accident constitutes a genuine expression of intent to resign, or whether it should be regarded as a de facto dismissal induced by the employer’s coercion, thereby falling within the scope of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that, while the employer was confirming the circumstances of the traffic accident that had occurred the previous day, the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter; that no circumstances were identified that would support viewing the expression of intent to resign as a non-genuine (i.e., merely formal and not sincerely intended) declaration; and that it was difficult to find that there was external pressure, such as coercion or restructuring, to the extent that the employee effectively had no choice.
In light of these factors, the panel found that the employee submitted the resignation letter with the intention of voluntarily terminating the employment contract.
The panel therefore held that no act of dismissal existed in this case and that it was appropriate to dismiss the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, once a resignation letter is submitted, the termination of the employment relationship will, absent any particular defect, likely be evaluated as “termination based on the employee’s own intent.” Even in emotionally charged situations, employees should refrain from hastily writing a resignation letter. If there is no intent to resign, they should clearly express their refusal, at least verbally, and if a resignation letter has already been submitted, they should promptly record their intent to withdraw it in writing.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to prevent disputes over unfair dismissal, it is advisable to avoid forcing an employee to resign during interviews or using expressions such as “you should quit.” Even when a resignation letter is submitted, the employer should preserve objective materials—such as the circumstances of its preparation, whether it was handwritten, the content of the interview, recordings, and notes from participants—so that these can be used as evidence if a dispute later arises before the Labor Relations Commission over whether the termination was a resignation or a dismissal.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
It is reasonable to view that the employment relationship ended because, on August 18, 2025, while the employer was confirming with the employee the circumstances of a traffic accident that had occurred the previous day, the employee, of his own volition, handwrote and submitted a resignation letter and then left the company. There are no circumstances to suggest that the employee’s expression of intent to resign was not genuine or was made under duress. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee does not exist.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
It is reasonable to view that the employment relationship ended because, on August 18, 2025, while the employer was confirming with the employee the circumstances of a traffic accident that had occurred the previous day, the employee, of his own volition, handwrote and submitted a resignation letter and then left the company. There are no circumstances to suggest that the employee’s expression of intent to resign was not genuine or was made under duress. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee does not exist. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision Date: – Case No.: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision Date: – Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (traffic accident 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 on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Temporary Workplace)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (traffic accident interview) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Traffic Accident Interview).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (traffic accident interview).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9021 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.12 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: It is reasonable to view that the employment relationship ended because, on August 18, 2025, while the employer was confirming the circumstances of a traffic accident that had occurred the previous day, the employee, of his own volition, handwrote and submitted a resignation letter and then left the company. There are no circumstances to suggest that the employee’s expression of intent to resign was not genuine or was made under duress. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee does not exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal arose after an employee, during an interview with the employer on the day following a traffic accident, wrote and submitted a resignation letter and thereafter claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
After reviewing the employee’s assertions, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on whether the termination of the employment relationship in this case constituted a dismissal by the employer or a voluntary resignation by the employee.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the resignation letter submitted during the interview concerning the traffic accident constitutes a genuine expression of intent to resign, or whether it should be regarded as a de facto dismissal induced by the employer’s coercion, thereby falling within the scope of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that, while the employer was confirming the circumstances of the traffic accident that had occurred the previous day, the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter; that no circumstances were identified that would support viewing the expression of intent to resign as a non-genuine (i.e., merely formal and not sincerely intended) declaration; and that it was difficult to find that there was external pressure, such as coercion or restructuring, to the extent that the employee effectively had no choice.
In light of these factors, the panel found that the employee submitted the resignation letter with the intention of voluntarily terminating the employment contract.
The panel therefore held that no act of dismissal existed in this case and that it was appropriate to dismiss the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, once a resignation letter is submitted, the termination of the employment relationship will, absent any particular defect, likely be evaluated as “termination based on the employee’s own intent.” Even in emotionally charged situations, employees should refrain from hastily writing a resignation letter. If there is no intent to resign, they should clearly express their refusal, at least verbally, and if a resignation letter has already been submitted, they should promptly record their intent to withdraw it in writing.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to prevent disputes over unfair dismissal, it is advisable to avoid forcing an employee to resign during interviews or using expressions such as “you should quit.” Even when a resignation letter is submitted, the employer should preserve objective materials—such as the circumstances of its preparation, whether it was handwritten, the content of the interview, recordings, and notes from participants—so that these can be used as evidence if a dispute later arises before the Labor Relations Commission over whether the termination was a resignation or a dismissal.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
It is reasonable to view that the employment relationship ended because, on August 18, 2025, while the employer was confirming with the employee the circumstances of a traffic accident that had occurred the previous day, the employee, of his own volition, handwrote and submitted a resignation letter and then left the company. There are no circumstances to suggest that the employee’s expression of intent to resign was not genuine or was made under duress. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee does not exist.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
It is reasonable to view that the employment relationship ended because, on August 18, 2025, while the employer was confirming with the employee the circumstances of a traffic accident that had occurred the previous day, the employee, of his own volition, handwrote and submitted a resignation letter and then left the company. There are no circumstances to suggest that the employee’s expression of intent to resign was not genuine or was made under duress. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee does not exist. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision Date: – Case No.: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision Date: – Case No.: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (traffic accident 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 on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Temporary Workplace)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (traffic accident interview) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Traffic Accident Interview).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
