Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on Resignation / Mutual Termination (Meeting Suggesting “Look for Another Job”) (Unfair Dismissal 331)
- Date2026/03/30 04:12
- Read 196
This case on the issue of “resignation / mutual termination (meeting suggesting ‘look for another job’)” ended with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application).
Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10314 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.03 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) when the employer, during a meeting, told the employee to look for another job, the employee replied that they understood; (ii) without any objection or challenge to the termination of the employment relationship, the employee requested that the separation be processed as “a case where the employer recommended retirement” for employment insurance purposes; (iii) the employee did not express any intention to continue working and stated that they would work only until that day and hand over their duties; (iv) in light of these circumstances, it was difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been unilaterally terminated by the employer against the employee’s will. Taking all of this together, the Commission found that there was no dismissal. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the issue was whether there had been an unfair dismissal where, after a meeting with the employer in which the employee was told to look for another job, the employee raised no particular objection to the termination process and cooperated with being processed as having resigned. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether a dismissal existed at all and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employer told the employee to look for another job, the employee’s subsequent words and conduct, taken as a whole, indicate that the termination of the employment relationship should be viewed as a unilateral dismissal by the employer, or instead as a resignation by the employee or a mutual termination by agreement between employer and employee.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that when the employer, during the meeting, told the employee to look for another job, the employee replied that they understood; that without any objection or challenge to the termination of the employment relationship, the employee themselves requested that the separation be processed for employment insurance purposes as “a case where the employer recommended retirement and the employee changed jobs”; that the employee did not express any intention to continue working and stated that they would work only until that day and hand over their duties; and that, in light of this series of circumstances, it was difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been unilaterally terminated by the employer against the employee’s will. Taking all of this together, the panel determined that there was no unilateral manifestation of intent to dismiss on the part of the employer.
The Commission therefore found that no dismissal existed in this case, and accordingly held that there was no unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If, during a meeting, an employee makes statements that can be understood as premised on resignation, such as “I understand” or “I will only work until today,” and personally requests that the reason for separation for employment insurance purposes be recorded as “retirement upon the employer’s recommendation,” the Labor Relations Commission may later evaluate the situation not as a dismissal, but as a resignation by the employee or a mutual termination.
If you intend to contest an unfair dismissal, it is important from the time of the meeting to clearly express your intention to continue working and to leave objective evidence—such as text messages, emails, or recordings—showing that you do not agree to being dismissed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to reduce disputes over unfair dismissal, it is necessary, when terminating an employment relationship, to clearly define whether the nature of the termination is dismissal, recommended resignation, or mutual termination, and to obtain the employee’s intentions clearly in writing or by electronic document. In particular, statements merely to the effect of “look for another job” are highly likely to be misunderstood as dismissal. Therefore, in order to increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the employer’s position in the event of a dispute, the employer should specifically record the questions and answers as to whether the employee wishes to continue working or agrees to a recommended resignation.
To prevail in this type of case, it is advisable to familiarize yourself in advance with the criteria distinguishing dismissal, resignation, and mutual termination and the relevant legal principles, and to systematically prepare the meeting process and documentation procedures with advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) When the employer, during a meeting, told the employee to look for another job, the employee replied that they understood; (ii) without any objection or challenge to the termination of the employment relationship, the employee requested that the separation be processed as “a case where the employer recommended retirement and the employee changed jobs”; (iii) the employee did not express any intention to continue working and stated that they would work only until that day and hand over their duties; and (iv) in light of these circumstances, it was difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been unilaterally terminated by the employer against the employee’s will. Taking all of this together, the Commission found that there was no dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(i) When the employer, during a meeting, told the employee to look for another job, the employee replied that they understood; (ii) without any objection or challenge to the termination of the employment relationship, the employee requested that the separation be processed as “a case where the employer recommended retirement and the employee changed jobs”; (iii) the employee did not express any intention to continue working and stated that they would work only until that day and hand over their duties; and (iv) in light of these circumstances, it was difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been unilaterally terminated by the employer against the employee’s will. Taking all of this together, the Commission found that there was no dismissal. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Absence of Coercion/Duress (Handwritten Resignation Letter)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Requirements for Remedy (Fewer than 5 Employees · Exclusion Period)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, resignation / mutual termination (meeting suggesting “look for another job”), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Requirements for Remedy (Fewer than 5 Employees · Exclusion Period),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to resignation / mutual termination (meeting suggesting “look for another job”) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Resignation / Mutual Termination (Meeting Suggesting ‘Look for Another Job’)”.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10314 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.03 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) when the employer, during a meeting, told the employee to look for another job, the employee replied that they understood; (ii) without any objection or challenge to the termination of the employment relationship, the employee requested that the separation be processed as “a case where the employer recommended retirement” for employment insurance purposes; (iii) the employee did not express any intention to continue working and stated that they would work only until that day and hand over their duties; (iv) in light of these circumstances, it was difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been unilaterally terminated by the employer against the employee’s will. Taking all of this together, the Commission found that there was no dismissal. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the issue was whether there had been an unfair dismissal where, after a meeting with the employer in which the employee was told to look for another job, the employee raised no particular objection to the termination process and cooperated with being processed as having resigned. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether a dismissal existed at all and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employer told the employee to look for another job, the employee’s subsequent words and conduct, taken as a whole, indicate that the termination of the employment relationship should be viewed as a unilateral dismissal by the employer, or instead as a resignation by the employee or a mutual termination by agreement between employer and employee.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that when the employer, during the meeting, told the employee to look for another job, the employee replied that they understood; that without any objection or challenge to the termination of the employment relationship, the employee themselves requested that the separation be processed for employment insurance purposes as “a case where the employer recommended retirement and the employee changed jobs”; that the employee did not express any intention to continue working and stated that they would work only until that day and hand over their duties; and that, in light of this series of circumstances, it was difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been unilaterally terminated by the employer against the employee’s will. Taking all of this together, the panel determined that there was no unilateral manifestation of intent to dismiss on the part of the employer.
The Commission therefore found that no dismissal existed in this case, and accordingly held that there was no unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If, during a meeting, an employee makes statements that can be understood as premised on resignation, such as “I understand” or “I will only work until today,” and personally requests that the reason for separation for employment insurance purposes be recorded as “retirement upon the employer’s recommendation,” the Labor Relations Commission may later evaluate the situation not as a dismissal, but as a resignation by the employee or a mutual termination.
If you intend to contest an unfair dismissal, it is important from the time of the meeting to clearly express your intention to continue working and to leave objective evidence—such as text messages, emails, or recordings—showing that you do not agree to being dismissed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in order to reduce disputes over unfair dismissal, it is necessary, when terminating an employment relationship, to clearly define whether the nature of the termination is dismissal, recommended resignation, or mutual termination, and to obtain the employee’s intentions clearly in writing or by electronic document. In particular, statements merely to the effect of “look for another job” are highly likely to be misunderstood as dismissal. Therefore, in order to increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the legitimacy of the employer’s position in the event of a dispute, the employer should specifically record the questions and answers as to whether the employee wishes to continue working or agrees to a recommended resignation.
To prevail in this type of case, it is advisable to familiarize yourself in advance with the criteria distinguishing dismissal, resignation, and mutual termination and the relevant legal principles, and to systematically prepare the meeting process and documentation procedures with advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) When the employer, during a meeting, told the employee to look for another job, the employee replied that they understood; (ii) without any objection or challenge to the termination of the employment relationship, the employee requested that the separation be processed as “a case where the employer recommended retirement and the employee changed jobs”; (iii) the employee did not express any intention to continue working and stated that they would work only until that day and hand over their duties; and (iv) in light of these circumstances, it was difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been unilaterally terminated by the employer against the employee’s will. Taking all of this together, the Commission found that there was no dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(i) When the employer, during a meeting, told the employee to look for another job, the employee replied that they understood; (ii) without any objection or challenge to the termination of the employment relationship, the employee requested that the separation be processed as “a case where the employer recommended retirement and the employee changed jobs”; (iii) the employee did not express any intention to continue working and stated that they would work only until that day and hand over their duties; and (iv) in light of these circumstances, it was difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been unilaterally terminated by the employer against the employee’s will. Taking all of this together, the Commission found that there was no dismissal. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Absence of Coercion/Duress (Handwritten Resignation Letter)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Requirements for Remedy (Fewer than 5 Employees · Exclusion Period)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, resignation / mutual termination (meeting suggesting “look for another job”), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Requirements for Remedy (Fewer than 5 Employees · Exclusion Period),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to resignation / mutual termination (meeting suggesting “look for another job”) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Resignation / Mutual Termination (Meeting Suggesting ‘Look for Another Job’)”.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
