Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Offer to Terminate by Agreement (Unpaid Leave · Resignation by Text)” (Unfair Dismissal 259)
- Date2026/03/05 04:14
- Read 220
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “offer to terminate by agreement (unpaid leave · resignation by text).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9136 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee argued that the employer was at fault in relation to the termination of the employment relationship, including by coercing unpaid leave on 29 October 2025. However, in light of the overall context of the parties’ conversations at the time, there was no indication that unpaid leave was coerced or that dismissal was induced.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, asserting that the company had effectively dismissed him/her by coercing unpaid leave and pressuring him/her to submit a resignation letter. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the parties’ conversations, text messages, telephone calls, and attendance at work, and focused its analysis on whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or a termination by agreement based on the employee’s voluntary intent.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In light of the meeting concerning the proposal of unpaid leave, the subsequent text messages, and the circumstances surrounding the cessation of attendance at work, did the termination of the employment relationship constitute a unilateral dismissal by the employer, or did it constitute retirement based on the employee’s ‘offer to terminate the employment contract by agreement’ and the employer’s acceptance thereof?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, in the overall context of the conversations, there was no indication that the employer coerced unpaid leave or induced dismissal; that, based solely on the text messages and telephone calls, it would have been difficult for the employer to know that the employee did not, in his/her inner mind, intend to resign, and there was no circumstance indicating that submission of a resignation letter was coerced; and that, after the employee offered on 29 October 2025 to terminate the employment relationship by agreement, he/she did not withdraw that offer and did not report to work.
In light of these circumstances, it was difficult to regard the employee as having had an intention to continue the employment relationship with the employer, and the Commission held that the employment relationship was terminated by agreement when the employer accepted the employee’s offer to terminate by agreement.
Accordingly, the Commission held that no dismissal measure existed in this case and therefore there was no unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee, without having an actual intention to resign, makes an emotional statement such as “I will quit,” or proposes termination by agreement via text message, the employer may treat this as a genuine expression of intent and regard it as a termination by agreement. If you change your mind after expressing an intention to resign or to terminate by agreement, it is safer, under the Civil Act principles on withdrawal of declarations of intent, to clearly communicate your withdrawal of that intent before the employer’s acceptance reaches you, and to leave evidence of this (e.g., text message, email).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary, in relation to discussions on unpaid leave proposals, resignation, and other matters concerning termination of the employment relationship, to preserve, as far as possible, specific details and circumstances of such discussions through notes, recordings, etc., so as to be able to demonstrate that they did not amount to coercion or inducement of dismissal. In addition, where an employee offers termination by agreement or expresses an intention to resign, the employer should verify the genuineness of that intent by comprehensively considering the background, wording, and subsequent attendance at work, and, where possible, obtain written confirmation. Clarifying the procedures in this way can reduce disputes over unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that the employer was at fault in relation to the termination of the employment relationship, including by coercing unpaid leave on 29 October 2025. However, in light of the overall context of the parties’ conversations at the time, there was no indication that unpaid leave was coerced or that dismissal was induced. The employee admitted having sent a text message on 10 November 2025, but claimed that he/she had no intention to resign and that Executive Director Lee pressed him/her to submit a resignation letter. However, a review of the text messages and telephone calls exchanged between the parties at the time suggests that it would have been difficult for the employer to ascertain the employee’s true inner intent, and there is no indication that submission of a resignation letter was coerced. Considering that the employee offered, as of 29 October 2025, to terminate the employment relationship by agreement and did not separately express any intention to withdraw that offer, and that he/she did not report to work after 29 October 2025, it does not appear that the employee intended to maintain the employment relationship with the employer. By accepting the employee’s offer to terminate the employment contract by agreement, the employer and the employee brought the employment relationship to an end by agreement, and no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee argued that the employer was at fault in relation to the termination of the employment relationship, including by coercing unpaid leave on 29 October 2025. However, in light of the overall context of the parties’ conversations at the time, there was no indication that unpaid leave was coerced or that dismissal was induced. The employee admitted having sent a text message on 10 November 2025, but claimed that he/she had no intention to resign and that Executive Director Lee pressed him/her to submit a resignation letter. However, a review of the text messages and telephone calls exchanged between the parties at the time suggests that it would have been difficult for the employer to ascertain the employee’s true inner intent, and there is no indication that submission of a resignation letter was coerced. Considering that the employee offered, as of 29 October 2025, to terminate the employment relationship by agreement and did not separately express any intention to withdraw that offer, and that he/she did not report to work after 29 October 2025, it does not appear that the employee intended to maintain the employment relationship with the employer. By accepting the employee’s offer to terminate the employment contract by agreement, the employer and the employee brought the employment relationship to an end by agreement, and no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, offer to terminate by agreement (unpaid leave · resignation by text), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Eligibility as Subject of Remedy (Request for Return of Expatriate Employee),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to offers to terminate by agreement (unpaid leave · resignation by text) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Offer to Terminate by Agreement (Unpaid Leave · Resignation by Text).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “offer to terminate by agreement (unpaid leave · resignation by text).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9136 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee argued that the employer was at fault in relation to the termination of the employment relationship, including by coercing unpaid leave on 29 October 2025. However, in light of the overall context of the parties’ conversations at the time, there was no indication that unpaid leave was coerced or that dismissal was induced.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, asserting that the company had effectively dismissed him/her by coercing unpaid leave and pressuring him/her to submit a resignation letter. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the parties’ conversations, text messages, telephone calls, and attendance at work, and focused its analysis on whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or a termination by agreement based on the employee’s voluntary intent.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In light of the meeting concerning the proposal of unpaid leave, the subsequent text messages, and the circumstances surrounding the cessation of attendance at work, did the termination of the employment relationship constitute a unilateral dismissal by the employer, or did it constitute retirement based on the employee’s ‘offer to terminate the employment contract by agreement’ and the employer’s acceptance thereof?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, in the overall context of the conversations, there was no indication that the employer coerced unpaid leave or induced dismissal; that, based solely on the text messages and telephone calls, it would have been difficult for the employer to know that the employee did not, in his/her inner mind, intend to resign, and there was no circumstance indicating that submission of a resignation letter was coerced; and that, after the employee offered on 29 October 2025 to terminate the employment relationship by agreement, he/she did not withdraw that offer and did not report to work.
In light of these circumstances, it was difficult to regard the employee as having had an intention to continue the employment relationship with the employer, and the Commission held that the employment relationship was terminated by agreement when the employer accepted the employee’s offer to terminate by agreement.
Accordingly, the Commission held that no dismissal measure existed in this case and therefore there was no unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee, without having an actual intention to resign, makes an emotional statement such as “I will quit,” or proposes termination by agreement via text message, the employer may treat this as a genuine expression of intent and regard it as a termination by agreement. If you change your mind after expressing an intention to resign or to terminate by agreement, it is safer, under the Civil Act principles on withdrawal of declarations of intent, to clearly communicate your withdrawal of that intent before the employer’s acceptance reaches you, and to leave evidence of this (e.g., text message, email).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary, in relation to discussions on unpaid leave proposals, resignation, and other matters concerning termination of the employment relationship, to preserve, as far as possible, specific details and circumstances of such discussions through notes, recordings, etc., so as to be able to demonstrate that they did not amount to coercion or inducement of dismissal. In addition, where an employee offers termination by agreement or expresses an intention to resign, the employer should verify the genuineness of that intent by comprehensively considering the background, wording, and subsequent attendance at work, and, where possible, obtain written confirmation. Clarifying the procedures in this way can reduce disputes over unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that the employer was at fault in relation to the termination of the employment relationship, including by coercing unpaid leave on 29 October 2025. However, in light of the overall context of the parties’ conversations at the time, there was no indication that unpaid leave was coerced or that dismissal was induced. The employee admitted having sent a text message on 10 November 2025, but claimed that he/she had no intention to resign and that Executive Director Lee pressed him/her to submit a resignation letter. However, a review of the text messages and telephone calls exchanged between the parties at the time suggests that it would have been difficult for the employer to ascertain the employee’s true inner intent, and there is no indication that submission of a resignation letter was coerced. Considering that the employee offered, as of 29 October 2025, to terminate the employment relationship by agreement and did not separately express any intention to withdraw that offer, and that he/she did not report to work after 29 October 2025, it does not appear that the employee intended to maintain the employment relationship with the employer. By accepting the employee’s offer to terminate the employment contract by agreement, the employer and the employee brought the employment relationship to an end by agreement, and no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee argued that the employer was at fault in relation to the termination of the employment relationship, including by coercing unpaid leave on 29 October 2025. However, in light of the overall context of the parties’ conversations at the time, there was no indication that unpaid leave was coerced or that dismissal was induced. The employee admitted having sent a text message on 10 November 2025, but claimed that he/she had no intention to resign and that Executive Director Lee pressed him/her to submit a resignation letter. However, a review of the text messages and telephone calls exchanged between the parties at the time suggests that it would have been difficult for the employer to ascertain the employee’s true inner intent, and there is no indication that submission of a resignation letter was coerced. Considering that the employee offered, as of 29 October 2025, to terminate the employment relationship by agreement and did not separately express any intention to withdraw that offer, and that he/she did not report to work after 29 October 2025, it does not appear that the employee intended to maintain the employment relationship with the employer. By accepting the employee’s offer to terminate the employment contract by agreement, the employer and the employee brought the employment relationship to an end by agreement, and no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, offer to terminate by agreement (unpaid leave · resignation by text), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Eligibility as Subject of Remedy (Request for Return of Expatriate Employee),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to offers to terminate by agreement (unpaid leave · resignation by text) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Offer to Terminate by Agreement (Unpaid Leave · Resignation by Text).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
