Corporate trends / Performance record
Expression of Intent to Resign (Oral Resignation by Restaurant Employees) and Related Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 341)
- Date2026/04/03 04:04
- Read 164
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (oral resignation by restaurant employees).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (oral resignation by restaurant employees).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9257 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.25 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: There is no dispute between the parties that Employee 1 first expressed an intent to resign on 13 December 2025, it is objectively unclear whether the subsequent return to the restaurant was for the purpose of resuming work, the existence and specific content of the alleged statement by the representative director’s spouse—claimed to constitute a notice of dismissal—were not clearly proven, and Employee 1 did not reconfirm with the representative director, who holds personnel authority, whether he/she had been dismissed, but instead left the restaurant during working hours together with a colleague and did not return to work thereafter…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, two employees working at a restaurant treated certain remarks by the employer’s side as a dismissal and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, viewed the situation as a voluntary resignation by the employees and dismissed the application. The Commission found that, taken together, the employees’ oral expressions of intent to resign, their subsequent refusal to report to work, and the employer’s settlement of wages on the same day showed that the employment relationships had been terminated by resignation.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, based solely on the words exchanged and surrounding circumstances at the restaurant, the employees’ statements that they would “quit” constituted a valid expression of intent to resign communicated to the employer, or whether the situation amounted to unfair dismissal by the employer.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case relied on the following: there was no dispute between the parties that Employee 1 first expressed an intent to resign on 13 December 2025; Employee 1 did not reconfirm with the representative director, who holds personnel authority, whether he/she had been dismissed, but instead left the restaurant for good during working hours together with a colleague and did not report to work thereafter; and the employer settled wages on that very day.
The Commission therefore viewed Employee 1’s conduct as indicative of a voluntary resignation, and held that the existence and content of the representative director’s spouse’s remarks were not proven with sufficient clarity to be regarded as an expression of intent to dismiss.
As for Employee 2, the Commission noted that Employee 2 admitted having said to a colleague on 13 December 2025, “I will quit,” that during the process in which the representative director’s spouse reconfirmed Employee 2’s intent to resign through another employee, Employee 2 did not clearly deny or retract that intent, and that the employer, on the same day, paid Employee 2’s wages in full and treated the employment relationship as terminated. On this basis, the Commission held that the expression of intent to resign had been validly communicated to the employer and that the employment relationship was thereby terminated.
Applying general legal principles, the Commission reiterated that where it is unclear whether an employment relationship ended by dismissal or by resignation/mutual termination, the employer bears the burden of proving resignation or mutual termination. In this case, the Commission found that resignation had been proven through the employees’ oral expressions of intent to resign and the subsequent wage settlement and failure to report to work.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if an employee says in the heat of the moment, “I will quit,” once that statement is communicated to the employer and the employee actually stops reporting to work or wages are settled, the Labor Relations Commission may treat the situation as a resignation. To claim dismissal, it is important to leave concrete evidence of who expressed the intent to dismiss, what was said, when and how it was communicated, and that you yourself intended to continue working.
If you perceived a remark by the employer’s spouse or a manager at the workplace as a dismissal, you should immediately confirm clearly with the representative director or other person holding personnel authority whether you have been dismissed or may continue working, and leave a written record via text message, messenger, or similar means. Such records can be decisive evidence in a later unfair dismissal dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an employee orally expresses an intent to resign, it is very important for dispute prevention to keep clear records of the specific content and timing of that expression, the process of reconfirming it, and the dates of wage settlement and processing of the termination of the employment contract. Where possible, you should obtain explicit confirmation through a simple resignation letter or resignation confirmation, or via text message/messenger by going through a procedure such as, “Pursuant to your request, may we process your resignation effective 13 December 2025?”
In addition, a structure in which unofficial persons—such as the representative director’s spouse or a store manager—speak as if they hold personnel authority and mention resignation or dismissal carries a high risk of disputes. It is therefore advisable to clearly define in the work rules who holds personnel authority and what procedures apply, and to establish consistent documentation procedures not only for major personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals but also for handling resignations.
To prevail in this type of case, it is necessary to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing unfair dismissal and resignation/mutual termination, and to consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& so that the facts and evidence can be systematically organized from the Labor Relations Commission stage onward. Because the outcome of an unfair dismissal dispute can vary greatly depending on the initial statements and preparation of materials, you should seek professional advice as promptly as possible in similar situations.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
There is no dispute between the parties that Employee 1 first expressed an intent to resign on 13 December 2025, it is objectively unclear whether the subsequent return to the restaurant was for the purpose of resuming work, the existence and specific content of the alleged statement by the representative director’s spouse—claimed to constitute a notice of dismissal—have not been clearly proven, and the fact that Employee 1 did not reconfirm with the representative director, who holds personnel authority, whether he/she had been dismissed, but instead left the restaurant for good during working hours together with a colleague and did not report to work thereafter, is viewed as indicative of a voluntary resignation. Taking into account that the employer settled Employee 1’s wages on that very day, it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated on 13 December 2025 in accordance with Employee 1’s intent to resign.
Employee 2 admitted having said to a colleague on 13 December 2025, “I will quit,” and it was confirmed that, during the process in which the representative director’s spouse reconfirmed Employee 2’s intent to resign through another employee, Employee 2 did not clearly deny or retract that intent. It is therefore reasonable to view the expression of intent to resign as having been validly communicated to the employer, and accordingly, it is determined that the employer, by paying all of Employee 2’s wages on 13 December 2025, confirmed the termination of the employment relationship with Employee 2.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
There is no dispute between the parties that Employee 1 first expressed an intent to resign on 13 December 2025, it is objectively unclear whether the subsequent return to the restaurant was for the purpose of resuming work, the existence and specific content of the alleged statement by the representative director’s spouse—claimed to constitute a notice of dismissal—have not been clearly proven, and the fact that Employee 1 did not reconfirm with the representative director, who holds personnel authority, whether he/she had been dismissed, but instead left the restaurant for good during working hours together with a colleague and did not report to work thereafter, is viewed as indicative of a voluntary resignation. Taking into account that the employer settled Employee 1’s wages on that very day, it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated on 13 December 2025 in accordance with Employee 1’s intent to resign.
Employee 2 admitted having said to a colleague on 13 December 2025, “I will quit,” and it was confirmed that, during the process in which the representative director’s spouse reconfirmed Employee 2’s intent to resign through another employee, Employee 2 did not clearly deny or retract that intent. It is therefore reasonable to view the expression of intent to resign as having been validly communicated to the employer, and accordingly, it is determined that the employer, by paying all of Employee 2’s wages on 13 December 2025, confirmed the termination of the employment relationship with Employee 2. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” and Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” and Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” and Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (oral resignation by restaurant employees), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Negligent PSD Management)’ and Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (oral resignation by restaurant employees) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Oral Resignation by Restaurant Employees)” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (oral resignation by restaurant employees).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9257 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.25 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: There is no dispute between the parties that Employee 1 first expressed an intent to resign on 13 December 2025, it is objectively unclear whether the subsequent return to the restaurant was for the purpose of resuming work, the existence and specific content of the alleged statement by the representative director’s spouse—claimed to constitute a notice of dismissal—were not clearly proven, and Employee 1 did not reconfirm with the representative director, who holds personnel authority, whether he/she had been dismissed, but instead left the restaurant during working hours together with a colleague and did not return to work thereafter…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, two employees working at a restaurant treated certain remarks by the employer’s side as a dismissal and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, viewed the situation as a voluntary resignation by the employees and dismissed the application. The Commission found that, taken together, the employees’ oral expressions of intent to resign, their subsequent refusal to report to work, and the employer’s settlement of wages on the same day showed that the employment relationships had been terminated by resignation.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, based solely on the words exchanged and surrounding circumstances at the restaurant, the employees’ statements that they would “quit” constituted a valid expression of intent to resign communicated to the employer, or whether the situation amounted to unfair dismissal by the employer.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case relied on the following: there was no dispute between the parties that Employee 1 first expressed an intent to resign on 13 December 2025; Employee 1 did not reconfirm with the representative director, who holds personnel authority, whether he/she had been dismissed, but instead left the restaurant for good during working hours together with a colleague and did not report to work thereafter; and the employer settled wages on that very day.
The Commission therefore viewed Employee 1’s conduct as indicative of a voluntary resignation, and held that the existence and content of the representative director’s spouse’s remarks were not proven with sufficient clarity to be regarded as an expression of intent to dismiss.
As for Employee 2, the Commission noted that Employee 2 admitted having said to a colleague on 13 December 2025, “I will quit,” that during the process in which the representative director’s spouse reconfirmed Employee 2’s intent to resign through another employee, Employee 2 did not clearly deny or retract that intent, and that the employer, on the same day, paid Employee 2’s wages in full and treated the employment relationship as terminated. On this basis, the Commission held that the expression of intent to resign had been validly communicated to the employer and that the employment relationship was thereby terminated.
Applying general legal principles, the Commission reiterated that where it is unclear whether an employment relationship ended by dismissal or by resignation/mutual termination, the employer bears the burden of proving resignation or mutual termination. In this case, the Commission found that resignation had been proven through the employees’ oral expressions of intent to resign and the subsequent wage settlement and failure to report to work.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if an employee says in the heat of the moment, “I will quit,” once that statement is communicated to the employer and the employee actually stops reporting to work or wages are settled, the Labor Relations Commission may treat the situation as a resignation. To claim dismissal, it is important to leave concrete evidence of who expressed the intent to dismiss, what was said, when and how it was communicated, and that you yourself intended to continue working.
If you perceived a remark by the employer’s spouse or a manager at the workplace as a dismissal, you should immediately confirm clearly with the representative director or other person holding personnel authority whether you have been dismissed or may continue working, and leave a written record via text message, messenger, or similar means. Such records can be decisive evidence in a later unfair dismissal dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an employee orally expresses an intent to resign, it is very important for dispute prevention to keep clear records of the specific content and timing of that expression, the process of reconfirming it, and the dates of wage settlement and processing of the termination of the employment contract. Where possible, you should obtain explicit confirmation through a simple resignation letter or resignation confirmation, or via text message/messenger by going through a procedure such as, “Pursuant to your request, may we process your resignation effective 13 December 2025?”
In addition, a structure in which unofficial persons—such as the representative director’s spouse or a store manager—speak as if they hold personnel authority and mention resignation or dismissal carries a high risk of disputes. It is therefore advisable to clearly define in the work rules who holds personnel authority and what procedures apply, and to establish consistent documentation procedures not only for major personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals but also for handling resignations.
To prevail in this type of case, it is necessary to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing unfair dismissal and resignation/mutual termination, and to consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& so that the facts and evidence can be systematically organized from the Labor Relations Commission stage onward. Because the outcome of an unfair dismissal dispute can vary greatly depending on the initial statements and preparation of materials, you should seek professional advice as promptly as possible in similar situations.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
There is no dispute between the parties that Employee 1 first expressed an intent to resign on 13 December 2025, it is objectively unclear whether the subsequent return to the restaurant was for the purpose of resuming work, the existence and specific content of the alleged statement by the representative director’s spouse—claimed to constitute a notice of dismissal—have not been clearly proven, and the fact that Employee 1 did not reconfirm with the representative director, who holds personnel authority, whether he/she had been dismissed, but instead left the restaurant for good during working hours together with a colleague and did not report to work thereafter, is viewed as indicative of a voluntary resignation. Taking into account that the employer settled Employee 1’s wages on that very day, it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated on 13 December 2025 in accordance with Employee 1’s intent to resign.
Employee 2 admitted having said to a colleague on 13 December 2025, “I will quit,” and it was confirmed that, during the process in which the representative director’s spouse reconfirmed Employee 2’s intent to resign through another employee, Employee 2 did not clearly deny or retract that intent. It is therefore reasonable to view the expression of intent to resign as having been validly communicated to the employer, and accordingly, it is determined that the employer, by paying all of Employee 2’s wages on 13 December 2025, confirmed the termination of the employment relationship with Employee 2.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
There is no dispute between the parties that Employee 1 first expressed an intent to resign on 13 December 2025, it is objectively unclear whether the subsequent return to the restaurant was for the purpose of resuming work, the existence and specific content of the alleged statement by the representative director’s spouse—claimed to constitute a notice of dismissal—have not been clearly proven, and the fact that Employee 1 did not reconfirm with the representative director, who holds personnel authority, whether he/she had been dismissed, but instead left the restaurant for good during working hours together with a colleague and did not report to work thereafter, is viewed as indicative of a voluntary resignation. Taking into account that the employer settled Employee 1’s wages on that very day, it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated on 13 December 2025 in accordance with Employee 1’s intent to resign.
Employee 2 admitted having said to a colleague on 13 December 2025, “I will quit,” and it was confirmed that, during the process in which the representative director’s spouse reconfirmed Employee 2’s intent to resign through another employee, Employee 2 did not clearly deny or retract that intent. It is therefore reasonable to view the expression of intent to resign as having been validly communicated to the employer, and accordingly, it is determined that the employer, by paying all of Employee 2’s wages on 13 December 2025, confirmed the termination of the employment relationship with Employee 2. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” and Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” and Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” and Related Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (oral resignation by restaurant employees), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Negligent PSD Management)’ and Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (oral resignation by restaurant employees) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Oral Resignation by Restaurant Employees)” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
