Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Absence of Coercion/Duress (Handwritten Resignation Letter)” (Unfair Dismissal 329)
- Date2026/03/30 04:04
- Read 188
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld on the issue of “absence of coercion/duress (handwritten resignation letter).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9043 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reexamination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.03 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Key issue summary: ① The employee, in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns whether a handwritten resignation letter submitted by an employee reflected the employee’s genuine intent, or whether it was the result of coercion or duress, leading the employee to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employee claimed that resignation was effectively forced during an interview with the employer’s representatives and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. In reexamination before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the first-instance decision (in favor of the employer) was upheld.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee wrote and submitted a resignation letter in his own handwriting, the atmosphere of the interview or the employer’s remarks are sufficient to regard the expression of intent to resign as having been made under coercion or duress, and thus whether a dismissal in substance exists.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that: the employee wrote and personally submitted a handwritten resignation letter on 1 July 2025; the department head who conducted the interview testified that he did not make any threatening remarks or engage in any threatening behavior during the interview, and there was no evidence to overturn this; and the interview took place in a location open to the public, which could not be regarded as a closed or isolated environment likely to induce fear. In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that there was coercion or duress in the process of submitting the resignation letter.
The panel therefore held that no “dismissal” existed at all in this case, and upheld the first-instance decision dismissing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee has personally written and submitted a resignation letter, it should be noted that merely asserting that “I felt pressured” will generally not suffice to have an unfair dismissal recognized. It is important to preserve circumstances and evidence that can objectively support a claim of duress—such as abusive language or threats, prolonged one-on-one interviews, coercion in a closed space, and recordings, text messages, emails, or immediate letters of protest/appeal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, using de facto forced resignations as a means to avoid redundancy or disciplinary dismissals carries a high risk of being found to constitute unfair dismissal and should be avoided. During interviews, it is advisable to proceed in an open space, with multiple participants, without abusive language or threats, while respecting the employee’s choice. Keeping records of the process and circumstances of confirming the employee’s intent to resign will help prevent disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Considering: ① that the employee wrote and submitted a handwritten resignation letter on 1 July 2025; ② that it was testified that Department Head Kim ○○ did not make any threatening remarks or engage in any threatening behavior during the interview; and ③ that the interview took place in a location open to the public, and no circumstances were identified that would allow it to be viewed as an environment capable of inducing fear—taken together, it is difficult to find that the resignation letter was submitted under coercion or duress, or that it was written without genuine intent. Accordingly, no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Considering: ① that the employee wrote and submitted a handwritten resignation letter on 1 July 2025; ② that it was testified that Department Head Kim ○○ did not make any threatening remarks or engage in any threatening behavior during the interview; and ③ that the interview took place in a location open to the public, and no circumstances were identified that would allow it to be viewed as an environment capable of inducing fear—taken together, it is difficult to find that the resignation letter was submitted under coercion or duress, or that it was written without genuine intent. Accordingly, no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Absence of coercion/duress (handwritten resignation letter), Miscellaneous, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Notice of Refusal to Extend Contract)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to absence of coercion/duress (handwritten resignation letter) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Absence of Coercion/Duress (Handwritten Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld on the issue of “absence of coercion/duress (handwritten resignation letter).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9043 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reexamination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.03 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Key issue summary: ① The employee, in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns whether a handwritten resignation letter submitted by an employee reflected the employee’s genuine intent, or whether it was the result of coercion or duress, leading the employee to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employee claimed that resignation was effectively forced during an interview with the employer’s representatives and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. In reexamination before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the first-instance decision (in favor of the employer) was upheld.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee wrote and submitted a resignation letter in his own handwriting, the atmosphere of the interview or the employer’s remarks are sufficient to regard the expression of intent to resign as having been made under coercion or duress, and thus whether a dismissal in substance exists.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that: the employee wrote and personally submitted a handwritten resignation letter on 1 July 2025; the department head who conducted the interview testified that he did not make any threatening remarks or engage in any threatening behavior during the interview, and there was no evidence to overturn this; and the interview took place in a location open to the public, which could not be regarded as a closed or isolated environment likely to induce fear. In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that there was coercion or duress in the process of submitting the resignation letter.
The panel therefore held that no “dismissal” existed at all in this case, and upheld the first-instance decision dismissing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee has personally written and submitted a resignation letter, it should be noted that merely asserting that “I felt pressured” will generally not suffice to have an unfair dismissal recognized. It is important to preserve circumstances and evidence that can objectively support a claim of duress—such as abusive language or threats, prolonged one-on-one interviews, coercion in a closed space, and recordings, text messages, emails, or immediate letters of protest/appeal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, using de facto forced resignations as a means to avoid redundancy or disciplinary dismissals carries a high risk of being found to constitute unfair dismissal and should be avoided. During interviews, it is advisable to proceed in an open space, with multiple participants, without abusive language or threats, while respecting the employee’s choice. Keeping records of the process and circumstances of confirming the employee’s intent to resign will help prevent disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Considering: ① that the employee wrote and submitted a handwritten resignation letter on 1 July 2025; ② that it was testified that Department Head Kim ○○ did not make any threatening remarks or engage in any threatening behavior during the interview; and ③ that the interview took place in a location open to the public, and no circumstances were identified that would allow it to be viewed as an environment capable of inducing fear—taken together, it is difficult to find that the resignation letter was submitted under coercion or duress, or that it was written without genuine intent. Accordingly, no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Considering: ① that the employee wrote and submitted a handwritten resignation letter on 1 July 2025; ② that it was testified that Department Head Kim ○○ did not make any threatening remarks or engage in any threatening behavior during the interview; and ③ that the interview took place in a location open to the public, and no circumstances were identified that would allow it to be viewed as an environment capable of inducing fear—taken together, it is difficult to find that the resignation letter was submitted under coercion or duress, or that it was written without genuine intent. Accordingly, no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Absence of coercion/duress (handwritten resignation letter), Miscellaneous, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Notice of Refusal to Extend Contract)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to absence of coercion/duress (handwritten resignation letter) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Absence of Coercion/Duress (Handwritten Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
