Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Expression of Intent to Resign (Email · Resignation Letter)” (Unfair Dismissal 243)
- Date2026/02/28 04:09
- Read 209
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (email · resignation letter).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9743 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.20 · Case Result: Dismissed
Key Issues Summary: (i) There was no evidence whatsoever to acknowledge that the employer directly expressed an intention to dismiss the employee; (ii) the employee, in 2025, …
---
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal remedy application, the key dispute before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the employee’s separation from employment constituted a dismissal or a voluntary resignation. This is a type of case frequently consulted on at Labor Law Firm Law&. In particular, the issue was whether unfair dismissal can be found even where there was an email inquiry about the resignation date, submission of a resignation letter, and a resignation procedure involving use of remaining annual leave.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
After refusing to consent to a personnel transfer, the employee sent an email to the employer asking to confirm the resignation date, in effect indicating an intention to leave the company. On the premise that the employee would use up all remaining annual leave, the employer informed the employee of the resignation date. The employee immediately submitted a resignation letter, which was accepted on the same day, and thereafter reported to work for a certain period and then used annual leave in accordance with the notified procedure before resigning.
The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this series of events amounted in substance to an unfair dismissal, while the employer argued that the employee had voluntarily resigned.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was whether the separation from employment could be regarded as an unfair dismissal in circumstances where “there was no direct notice of dismissal from the employer, and the employee, after inquiring by email about the resignation date, submitted a resignation letter which was accepted.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that there was no evidence whatsoever to acknowledge that the employer directly expressed an intention to dismiss the employee; that the employee first sent an email, premised on resignation, asking to confirm the resignation date, and the employer, in response, informed the employee of the resignation date on the premise of using up annual leave; that the employee personally submitted a handwritten resignation letter, which was accepted on the same day; and that the employee, in accordance with the employer’s guidance, followed the procedures for reporting to work and using annual leave.
In light of the above, the panel held that there was no evidence to support the employee’s assertion that the employer forced or pressured the employee to resign, and it was also difficult to view the employee’s expression of intent to resign as not reflecting the employee’s true intention or as invalid. Accordingly, the termination of the employment relationship in this case was deemed not a dismissal but a valid resignation.
Therefore, as there was in effect no dismissal disposition in this case, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed. In this respect, the decision is an important precedent on the boundary between resignation and dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that if you use expressions such as “I will resign” or “please set my resignation date” in emails, messenger messages, or interviews, this may later be evaluated as a voluntary resignation when combined with submission of a resignation letter. If the resignation does not reflect your true intention, it is important, before submitting a resignation letter, to specifically record and preserve evidence of any circumstances of coercion or pressure, and, if possible, to clearly indicate that you are withholding or withdrawing any intention to resign.
In addition, once a resignation letter has already been submitted, the timing at which it can be withdrawn will differ depending on whether the expression of intent to resign is treated as a notice of termination by the employee or as an offer to terminate by mutual agreement. Therefore, rather than hastily submitting a resignation letter, you should first consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and then determine how to respond.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, it is important to keep objective records—such as emails and interview notes—of the circumstances and content when the employee first expresses an intention to resign. If, before submission of a resignation letter, the company repeatedly makes statements to the effect of “leave” or “quit,” or strongly presses for submission of a resignation letter as a substitute for restructuring or collective dismissal, then even if the form is a resignation, it may be judged in substance as a dismissal, so caution is required.
After acceptance of a resignation letter, the company should clearly inform the employee of the resignation date, plan for use of annual leave, and details of wages and final settlement, and manage the process so that the documentation also reflects that the separation was a voluntary resignation by the employee.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have a precise understanding of the legal principles distinguishing resignation from dismissal, and to have the practical capability to carefully secure and organize evidence of the circumstances surrounding the employee’s expression of intent and the employee’s subsequent conduct.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) There is no evidence whatsoever to acknowledge that the employer directly expressed an intention to dismiss the employee;
(2) on 23 September 2025, the employee sent an email asking to confirm the resignation date, and on 24 September 2025, the employer, viewing the employee as having decided to resign due to non-consent to the personnel transfer, replied by informing the employee of the resignation date based on use of remaining annual leave;
(3) on 24 September 2025, the employee submitted a resignation letter, which was accepted on the same day;
(4) in accordance with the resignation procedure guided by the employer, the employee reported to work until 30 September 2025 and used annual leave from 1 October 2025 to 27 October 2025;
(5) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the employer pressured the employee to resign, and it cannot be viewed that the expression of intent to resign did not reflect the employee’s true intention or was invalid.
In light of the foregoing, [the dismissal disposition] does not exist.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) There is no evidence whatsoever to acknowledge that the employer directly expressed an intention to dismiss the employee;
(2) on 23 September 2025, the employee sent an email asking to confirm the resignation date, and on 24 September 2025, the employer, viewing the employee as having decided to resign due to non-consent to the personnel transfer, replied by informing the employee of the resignation date based on use of remaining annual leave;
(3) on 24 September 2025, the employee submitted a resignation letter, which was accepted on the same day;
(4) in accordance with the resignation procedure guided by the employer, the employee reported to work until 30 September 2025 and used annual leave from 1 October 2025 to 27 October 2025;
(5) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the employer pressured the employee to resign, and it cannot be viewed that the expression of intent to resign did not reflect the employee’s true intention or was invalid.
In light of the foregoing, [the dismissal disposition] does not exist.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (email · 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Abandonment of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (email · resignation letter) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Email · 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 “expression of intent to resign (email · resignation letter).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9743 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.20 · Case Result: Dismissed
Key Issues Summary: (i) There was no evidence whatsoever to acknowledge that the employer directly expressed an intention to dismiss the employee; (ii) the employee, in 2025, …
---
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal remedy application, the key dispute before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the employee’s separation from employment constituted a dismissal or a voluntary resignation. This is a type of case frequently consulted on at Labor Law Firm Law&. In particular, the issue was whether unfair dismissal can be found even where there was an email inquiry about the resignation date, submission of a resignation letter, and a resignation procedure involving use of remaining annual leave.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
After refusing to consent to a personnel transfer, the employee sent an email to the employer asking to confirm the resignation date, in effect indicating an intention to leave the company. On the premise that the employee would use up all remaining annual leave, the employer informed the employee of the resignation date. The employee immediately submitted a resignation letter, which was accepted on the same day, and thereafter reported to work for a certain period and then used annual leave in accordance with the notified procedure before resigning.
The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this series of events amounted in substance to an unfair dismissal, while the employer argued that the employee had voluntarily resigned.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was whether the separation from employment could be regarded as an unfair dismissal in circumstances where “there was no direct notice of dismissal from the employer, and the employee, after inquiring by email about the resignation date, submitted a resignation letter which was accepted.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that there was no evidence whatsoever to acknowledge that the employer directly expressed an intention to dismiss the employee; that the employee first sent an email, premised on resignation, asking to confirm the resignation date, and the employer, in response, informed the employee of the resignation date on the premise of using up annual leave; that the employee personally submitted a handwritten resignation letter, which was accepted on the same day; and that the employee, in accordance with the employer’s guidance, followed the procedures for reporting to work and using annual leave.
In light of the above, the panel held that there was no evidence to support the employee’s assertion that the employer forced or pressured the employee to resign, and it was also difficult to view the employee’s expression of intent to resign as not reflecting the employee’s true intention or as invalid. Accordingly, the termination of the employment relationship in this case was deemed not a dismissal but a valid resignation.
Therefore, as there was in effect no dismissal disposition in this case, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed. In this respect, the decision is an important precedent on the boundary between resignation and dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that if you use expressions such as “I will resign” or “please set my resignation date” in emails, messenger messages, or interviews, this may later be evaluated as a voluntary resignation when combined with submission of a resignation letter. If the resignation does not reflect your true intention, it is important, before submitting a resignation letter, to specifically record and preserve evidence of any circumstances of coercion or pressure, and, if possible, to clearly indicate that you are withholding or withdrawing any intention to resign.
In addition, once a resignation letter has already been submitted, the timing at which it can be withdrawn will differ depending on whether the expression of intent to resign is treated as a notice of termination by the employee or as an offer to terminate by mutual agreement. Therefore, rather than hastily submitting a resignation letter, you should first consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and then determine how to respond.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, it is important to keep objective records—such as emails and interview notes—of the circumstances and content when the employee first expresses an intention to resign. If, before submission of a resignation letter, the company repeatedly makes statements to the effect of “leave” or “quit,” or strongly presses for submission of a resignation letter as a substitute for restructuring or collective dismissal, then even if the form is a resignation, it may be judged in substance as a dismissal, so caution is required.
After acceptance of a resignation letter, the company should clearly inform the employee of the resignation date, plan for use of annual leave, and details of wages and final settlement, and manage the process so that the documentation also reflects that the separation was a voluntary resignation by the employee.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have a precise understanding of the legal principles distinguishing resignation from dismissal, and to have the practical capability to carefully secure and organize evidence of the circumstances surrounding the employee’s expression of intent and the employee’s subsequent conduct.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) There is no evidence whatsoever to acknowledge that the employer directly expressed an intention to dismiss the employee;
(2) on 23 September 2025, the employee sent an email asking to confirm the resignation date, and on 24 September 2025, the employer, viewing the employee as having decided to resign due to non-consent to the personnel transfer, replied by informing the employee of the resignation date based on use of remaining annual leave;
(3) on 24 September 2025, the employee submitted a resignation letter, which was accepted on the same day;
(4) in accordance with the resignation procedure guided by the employer, the employee reported to work until 30 September 2025 and used annual leave from 1 October 2025 to 27 October 2025;
(5) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the employer pressured the employee to resign, and it cannot be viewed that the expression of intent to resign did not reflect the employee’s true intention or was invalid.
In light of the foregoing, [the dismissal disposition] does not exist.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) There is no evidence whatsoever to acknowledge that the employer directly expressed an intention to dismiss the employee;
(2) on 23 September 2025, the employee sent an email asking to confirm the resignation date, and on 24 September 2025, the employer, viewing the employee as having decided to resign due to non-consent to the personnel transfer, replied by informing the employee of the resignation date based on use of remaining annual leave;
(3) on 24 September 2025, the employee submitted a resignation letter, which was accepted on the same day;
(4) in accordance with the resignation procedure guided by the employer, the employee reported to work until 30 September 2025 and used annual leave from 1 October 2025 to 27 October 2025;
(5) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the employer pressured the employee to resign, and it cannot be viewed that the expression of intent to resign did not reflect the employee’s true intention or was invalid.
In light of the foregoing, [the dismissal disposition] does not exist.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (email · 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Abandonment of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (email · resignation letter) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Email · Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
