Corporate trends / Performance record
Denial of Forced Resignation (Handwritten Resignation Letter · Receipt of Severance Ex Gratia Payment) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 320)
- Date2026/03/27 10:17
- Read 210
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of forced resignation (handwritten resignation letter · receipt of severance ex gratia payment).”
Decision body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9021 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.09 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee argued that submission of a resignation letter under the employer’s coercion constituted a declaration of intent not reflecting his true intention. However, in light of (i) the fact that he submitted a handwritten resignation letter and received a retirement ex gratia payment, (ii) his own acknowledgment that he had been given an opportunity by the employer to choose the reason for his resignation, and (iii) the lack of circumstances indicating that the employer notified him of any unlawful harm that deprived him of freedom of decision-making, it was difficult to deny the employee’s declaration of intent to resign. Accordingly...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed that he had submitted a resignation letter under the employer’s coercion, asserted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employee argued that the submission of the resignation letter was a declaration of intent not reflecting his true intention, whereas the employer contended that the employee had voluntarily resigned and even received a retirement ex gratia payment, and therefore that no dismissal existed in the first place.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee has submitted a handwritten resignation letter and received a retirement ex gratia payment, can the declaration of intent to resign be regarded as a non-genuine declaration of intent made under the employer’s coercion, thereby allowing a finding of unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee himself had handwritten and submitted the resignation letter, that he had received a retirement ex gratia payment in connection with his resignation, that during the interview process he acknowledged that he had been given an opportunity by the employer to choose the reason for his resignation, and that there were no confirmed circumstances indicating that the employer had notified him of any unlawful harm that would have deprived him of his freedom of decision-making.
In light of these factors, the panel found it difficult to accept the employee’s assertion that his declaration of intent to resign was a non-genuine declaration of intent made under coercion.
The panel therefore held that no dismissal existed in this case, and ultimately dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, thereby ruling in favor of the employer.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to successfully assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to prove, with specific circumstances and evidence, more than merely having “felt pressured.” The employee must show, for example, that the employer notified him of unlawful harm or that, in substance, there was no real alternative to resignation. A handwritten resignation letter, receipt of a retirement ex gratia payment, and statements acknowledging that he chose the reason for resignation during the interview all strongly support the voluntariness of the resignation. Therefore, if a dispute is anticipated, it is advisable to seek sufficient advice and carefully deliberate before preparing and submitting a resignation letter.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, it is important in the course of resignation or mutual termination discussions to grant the employee options and a cooling-off period, and to preserve objective records of the process and its content in writing, by email, and so on. In particular, to avoid suspicion that the company induced resignation as a means of evading a redundancy dismissal, the company should manage its interview manner and records so that it is clear there was no notification of unlawful harm or excessive pressure.
This decision illustrates that, in distinguishing resignation from dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively considers the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the resignation letter, whether any ex gratia payment was received, the employee’s statements, and whether the employer notified the employee of any harm. In preparation for similar cases, it is advisable to review and refine HR and separation procedures in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that submission of a resignation letter under the employer’s coercion constituted a declaration of intent not reflecting his true intention. However, in light of (i) the fact that he submitted a handwritten resignation letter and received a retirement ex gratia payment, (ii) his own acknowledgment that he had been given an opportunity by the employer to choose the reason for his resignation, and (iii) the lack of circumstances indicating that the employer notified him of any unlawful harm that deprived him of freedom of decision-making, it was difficult to deny the employee’s declaration of intent to resign. Accordingly, no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee argued that submission of a resignation letter under the employer’s coercion constituted a declaration of intent not reflecting his true intention. However, in light of (i) the fact that he submitted a handwritten resignation letter and received a retirement ex gratia payment, (ii) his own acknowledgment that he had been given an opportunity by the employer to choose the reason for his resignation, and (iii) the lack of circumstances indicating that the employer notified him of any unlawful harm that deprived him of freedom of decision-making, it was difficult to deny the employee’s declaration of intent to resign. Accordingly, no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Declaration of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of forced resignation (handwritten resignation letter · receipt of severance ex gratia payment), 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 on Reemployment after Mandatory Retirement (Reemployment Rate 42%),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of forced resignation (handwritten resignation letter · receipt of severance ex gratia payment) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Forced Resignation (Handwritten Resignation Letter · Receipt of Severance Ex Gratia Payment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of forced resignation (handwritten resignation letter · receipt of severance ex gratia payment).”
Decision body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9021 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.09 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee argued that submission of a resignation letter under the employer’s coercion constituted a declaration of intent not reflecting his true intention. However, in light of (i) the fact that he submitted a handwritten resignation letter and received a retirement ex gratia payment, (ii) his own acknowledgment that he had been given an opportunity by the employer to choose the reason for his resignation, and (iii) the lack of circumstances indicating that the employer notified him of any unlawful harm that deprived him of freedom of decision-making, it was difficult to deny the employee’s declaration of intent to resign. Accordingly...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed that he had submitted a resignation letter under the employer’s coercion, asserted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employee argued that the submission of the resignation letter was a declaration of intent not reflecting his true intention, whereas the employer contended that the employee had voluntarily resigned and even received a retirement ex gratia payment, and therefore that no dismissal existed in the first place.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee has submitted a handwritten resignation letter and received a retirement ex gratia payment, can the declaration of intent to resign be regarded as a non-genuine declaration of intent made under the employer’s coercion, thereby allowing a finding of unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee himself had handwritten and submitted the resignation letter, that he had received a retirement ex gratia payment in connection with his resignation, that during the interview process he acknowledged that he had been given an opportunity by the employer to choose the reason for his resignation, and that there were no confirmed circumstances indicating that the employer had notified him of any unlawful harm that would have deprived him of his freedom of decision-making.
In light of these factors, the panel found it difficult to accept the employee’s assertion that his declaration of intent to resign was a non-genuine declaration of intent made under coercion.
The panel therefore held that no dismissal existed in this case, and ultimately dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, thereby ruling in favor of the employer.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to successfully assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to prove, with specific circumstances and evidence, more than merely having “felt pressured.” The employee must show, for example, that the employer notified him of unlawful harm or that, in substance, there was no real alternative to resignation. A handwritten resignation letter, receipt of a retirement ex gratia payment, and statements acknowledging that he chose the reason for resignation during the interview all strongly support the voluntariness of the resignation. Therefore, if a dispute is anticipated, it is advisable to seek sufficient advice and carefully deliberate before preparing and submitting a resignation letter.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, it is important in the course of resignation or mutual termination discussions to grant the employee options and a cooling-off period, and to preserve objective records of the process and its content in writing, by email, and so on. In particular, to avoid suspicion that the company induced resignation as a means of evading a redundancy dismissal, the company should manage its interview manner and records so that it is clear there was no notification of unlawful harm or excessive pressure.
This decision illustrates that, in distinguishing resignation from dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively considers the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the resignation letter, whether any ex gratia payment was received, the employee’s statements, and whether the employer notified the employee of any harm. In preparation for similar cases, it is advisable to review and refine HR and separation procedures in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that submission of a resignation letter under the employer’s coercion constituted a declaration of intent not reflecting his true intention. However, in light of (i) the fact that he submitted a handwritten resignation letter and received a retirement ex gratia payment, (ii) his own acknowledgment that he had been given an opportunity by the employer to choose the reason for his resignation, and (iii) the lack of circumstances indicating that the employer notified him of any unlawful harm that deprived him of freedom of decision-making, it was difficult to deny the employee’s declaration of intent to resign. Accordingly, no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee argued that submission of a resignation letter under the employer’s coercion constituted a declaration of intent not reflecting his true intention. However, in light of (i) the fact that he submitted a handwritten resignation letter and received a retirement ex gratia payment, (ii) his own acknowledgment that he had been given an opportunity by the employer to choose the reason for his resignation, and (iii) the lack of circumstances indicating that the employer notified him of any unlawful harm that deprived him of freedom of decision-making, it was difficult to deny the employee’s declaration of intent to resign. Accordingly, no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Declaration of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of forced resignation (handwritten resignation letter · receipt of severance ex gratia payment), 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 on Reemployment after Mandatory Retirement (Reemployment Rate 42%),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of forced resignation (handwritten resignation letter · receipt of severance ex gratia payment) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Forced Resignation (Handwritten Resignation Letter · Receipt of Severance Ex Gratia Payment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
