Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the “Existence of Dismissal (Repeated Recommendations to Resign)” (Unfair Dismissal 241)
- Date2026/02/27 04:13
- Read 213
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld, concerning the issue of “existence of dismissal (repeated recommendations to resign).”
Decision body: National Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae1540 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.21 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of dismissal
① The employer recommended that the employee resign on three occasions;
② When recommending resignation, the employer provided a resignation letter form;
③ Each time the employer recommended resignation, the employee clearly expressed an intention to continue working;
④ The employer stated to the employee, “I hope we can wrap this up nicely,” thereby exerting de facto pressure to resign.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose where the employer repeatedly recommended that the employee resign, and the subsequent termination of the employment relationship raised the question of whether it constituted a resignation or a dismissal. The matter proceeded to reconsideration before the National Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Relations Commission assessed the substance of the termination of the employment relationship by comprehensively considering the circumstances of the employer’s repeated recommendations to resign and the employer’s subsequent conduct, such as requiring the employee to report to work even after giving notice of dismissal. Labor Law Firm Law& considers that this decision highlights once again the criteria for distinguishing between resignation and dismissal, and the importance of written notice of dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“In a situation where the employer repeatedly recommends that the employee resign, but the employee continues to express a clear intention to remain employed, can the termination of the employment relationship be regarded as a dismissal rather than a resignation? In addition, is a dismissal valid if the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal are not notified in writing?”
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that: the employer recommended that the employee resign on three occasions and even provided a resignation letter form; the employee clearly expressed an intention to continue working each time the employer recommended resignation; the employer effectively pressured the employee to leave by saying, “I hope we can wrap this up nicely”; and, although the employee, believing that dismissal had been notified on 5 June 2025, sent a message stating that they would not report to work, the employer neither immediately denied this nor took steps to have the employee return, and only on 10 June again recommended resignation while merely pointing out that the employee was absent without leave and ordering the employee to report to work.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the termination of the employment relationship should be viewed not as the employee’s voluntary resignation, but as a dismissal effected unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will.
Furthermore, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal is a requirement for the dismissal to be effective. This written notice requirement is a formality intended to clarify the existence, timing, and reasons for dismissal so as to facilitate dispute resolution and to guarantee the employee’s right to defend themself. In addition, the reasons for dismissal must be stated with sufficient specificity for the employee to understand what the problem was.
In this case, the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal when dismissing the employee. Accordingly, the Commission found that the dismissal was procedurally defective and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
In situations where an employee is repeatedly urged to resign, it is important for the employee to clearly express their intention to continue working and to keep records of related conversations, messages, and whether a resignation letter was submitted. Even if the employer does not explicitly use the term “dismissal,” if the employer unilaterally terminates the employment relationship against the employee’s will, the Labor Relations Commission may regard the termination as a de facto dismissal. It is also advisable to record, via text message or messenger, the time at which the employee understands that dismissal has been notified, as well as the circumstances and content of that notification, as such records can be very helpful in proving the existence of dismissal when applying for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
If, during the process of recommending resignation, the employee clearly expresses an intention to continue working, and the employer nonetheless takes measures that effectively presuppose the employee’s departure, those measures may be evaluated as a dismissal, so particular caution is required. If it is necessary to terminate the employment relationship, then unless the employee’s voluntary intention to resign is clearly confirmed, the employer should treat the matter as a dismissal and, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, deliver a written notice specifying in detail the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal. In particular, attempts to terminate the employment relationship solely through oral notification or by filing only a report of loss of coverage under the four major social insurance schemes carry a high risk of being found to constitute unfair dismissal due to procedural defects.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of dismissal
① The employer recommended that the employee resign on three occasions;
② When recommending resignation, the employer provided a resignation letter form;
③ Each time the employer recommended resignation, the employee expressed an intention to continue working;
④ The employer acknowledges that they recommended resignation to the employee, saying, “I hope we can wrap this up nicely”;
⑤ Even though the employee, on 5 June 2025, sent a message to the effect that they would not report to work because the employer had notified dismissal, the employer took no separate measures and only on 10 June again recommended resignation, while stating that the employee was absent without leave and ordering the employee to report to work.
In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been caused by the employer’s unilateral intention against the will of the employee.
B. Justifiability of the dismissal
Because the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal when dismissing the employee, the dismissal is unfair.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Existence of dismissal
① The employer recommended that the employee resign on three occasions;
② When recommending resignation, the employer provided a resignation letter form;
③ Each time the employer recommended resignation, the employee expressed an intention to continue working;
④ The employer acknowledges that they recommended resignation to the employee, saying, “I hope we can wrap this up nicely”;
⑤ Even though the employee, on 5 June 2025, sent a message to the effect that they would not report to work because the employer had notified dismissal, the employer took no separate measures and only on 10 June again recommended resignation, while stating that the employee was absent without leave and ordering the employee to report to work.
In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been caused by the employer’s unilateral intention against the will of the employee.
B. Justifiability of the dismissal
Because the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal when dismissing the employee, the dismissal is unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Arbitrary Discount Purchase at Mart)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (repeated recommendations to resign), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Arbitrary Discount Purchase at Mart),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (repeated recommendations to resign) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Repeated Recommendations to Resign).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld, concerning the issue of “existence of dismissal (repeated recommendations to resign).”
Decision body: National Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae1540 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.21 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of dismissal
① The employer recommended that the employee resign on three occasions;
② When recommending resignation, the employer provided a resignation letter form;
③ Each time the employer recommended resignation, the employee clearly expressed an intention to continue working;
④ The employer stated to the employee, “I hope we can wrap this up nicely,” thereby exerting de facto pressure to resign.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose where the employer repeatedly recommended that the employee resign, and the subsequent termination of the employment relationship raised the question of whether it constituted a resignation or a dismissal. The matter proceeded to reconsideration before the National Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Relations Commission assessed the substance of the termination of the employment relationship by comprehensively considering the circumstances of the employer’s repeated recommendations to resign and the employer’s subsequent conduct, such as requiring the employee to report to work even after giving notice of dismissal. Labor Law Firm Law& considers that this decision highlights once again the criteria for distinguishing between resignation and dismissal, and the importance of written notice of dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“In a situation where the employer repeatedly recommends that the employee resign, but the employee continues to express a clear intention to remain employed, can the termination of the employment relationship be regarded as a dismissal rather than a resignation? In addition, is a dismissal valid if the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal are not notified in writing?”
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that: the employer recommended that the employee resign on three occasions and even provided a resignation letter form; the employee clearly expressed an intention to continue working each time the employer recommended resignation; the employer effectively pressured the employee to leave by saying, “I hope we can wrap this up nicely”; and, although the employee, believing that dismissal had been notified on 5 June 2025, sent a message stating that they would not report to work, the employer neither immediately denied this nor took steps to have the employee return, and only on 10 June again recommended resignation while merely pointing out that the employee was absent without leave and ordering the employee to report to work.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the termination of the employment relationship should be viewed not as the employee’s voluntary resignation, but as a dismissal effected unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will.
Furthermore, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal is a requirement for the dismissal to be effective. This written notice requirement is a formality intended to clarify the existence, timing, and reasons for dismissal so as to facilitate dispute resolution and to guarantee the employee’s right to defend themself. In addition, the reasons for dismissal must be stated with sufficient specificity for the employee to understand what the problem was.
In this case, the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal when dismissing the employee. Accordingly, the Commission found that the dismissal was procedurally defective and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
In situations where an employee is repeatedly urged to resign, it is important for the employee to clearly express their intention to continue working and to keep records of related conversations, messages, and whether a resignation letter was submitted. Even if the employer does not explicitly use the term “dismissal,” if the employer unilaterally terminates the employment relationship against the employee’s will, the Labor Relations Commission may regard the termination as a de facto dismissal. It is also advisable to record, via text message or messenger, the time at which the employee understands that dismissal has been notified, as well as the circumstances and content of that notification, as such records can be very helpful in proving the existence of dismissal when applying for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
If, during the process of recommending resignation, the employee clearly expresses an intention to continue working, and the employer nonetheless takes measures that effectively presuppose the employee’s departure, those measures may be evaluated as a dismissal, so particular caution is required. If it is necessary to terminate the employment relationship, then unless the employee’s voluntary intention to resign is clearly confirmed, the employer should treat the matter as a dismissal and, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, deliver a written notice specifying in detail the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal. In particular, attempts to terminate the employment relationship solely through oral notification or by filing only a report of loss of coverage under the four major social insurance schemes carry a high risk of being found to constitute unfair dismissal due to procedural defects.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of dismissal
① The employer recommended that the employee resign on three occasions;
② When recommending resignation, the employer provided a resignation letter form;
③ Each time the employer recommended resignation, the employee expressed an intention to continue working;
④ The employer acknowledges that they recommended resignation to the employee, saying, “I hope we can wrap this up nicely”;
⑤ Even though the employee, on 5 June 2025, sent a message to the effect that they would not report to work because the employer had notified dismissal, the employer took no separate measures and only on 10 June again recommended resignation, while stating that the employee was absent without leave and ordering the employee to report to work.
In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been caused by the employer’s unilateral intention against the will of the employee.
B. Justifiability of the dismissal
Because the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal when dismissing the employee, the dismissal is unfair.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Existence of dismissal
① The employer recommended that the employee resign on three occasions;
② When recommending resignation, the employer provided a resignation letter form;
③ Each time the employer recommended resignation, the employee expressed an intention to continue working;
④ The employer acknowledges that they recommended resignation to the employee, saying, “I hope we can wrap this up nicely”;
⑤ Even though the employee, on 5 June 2025, sent a message to the effect that they would not report to work because the employer had notified dismissal, the employer took no separate measures and only on 10 June again recommended resignation, while stating that the employee was absent without leave and ordering the employee to report to work.
In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been caused by the employer’s unilateral intention against the will of the employee.
B. Justifiability of the dismissal
Because the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal when dismissing the employee, the dismissal is unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Arbitrary Discount Purchase at Mart)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (repeated recommendations to resign), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Arbitrary Discount Purchase at Mart),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (repeated recommendations to resign) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Repeated Recommendations to Resign).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
