Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Genuine Intention Behind Letter of Resignation (KakaoTalk Circumstances)” (Unfair Dismissal 375)
- Date2026/04/15 04:09
- Read 172
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “genuine intention behind letter of resignation (KakaoTalk circumstances).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9934 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.13 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: ① The employee, on 2025. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee voluntarily submitted a letter of resignation, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employee argued that they had no choice but to write the letter of resignation due to the employer’s coercion, while the employer contended that the employment relationship had ended by the employee’s voluntary resignation or by mutual agreement.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the letter of resignation submitted by the employee constitutes a declaration of intent not reflecting the employee’s true intention, having been made under the employer’s coercion or duress and therefore amounting in substance to a dismissal (unfair dismissal), or whether, as viewed by the Labor Relations Commission, it should be regarded as a voluntary resignation or mutual termination.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employee explicitly submitted a letter of resignation dated 7 November 2025, that even in light of the surrounding circumstances such as KakaoTalk messages before and after the submission of the letter of resignation it was difficult to find that there had been coercion or duress by the employer, and that after resigning the employee only made demands related to unemployment benefits and never expressed any intention to withdraw the resignation or to continue working, and left the workplace before the end of working hours on that day.
In view of these circumstances, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the employee’s intention to resign as a declaration of intent not reflecting their true intention, and that, by the employer’s acceptance of the resignation, the employment contract had been terminated by mutual agreement (voluntary resignation).
The panel therefore held that no dismissal existed in this case and dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, absent special circumstances, submission of a letter of resignation will be regarded as an expression of intent to resign or to terminate the employment relationship by mutual agreement. If you change your mind after submitting a letter of resignation, you should promptly and clearly express your intention to withdraw the resignation and to continue working, using a method that leaves a record such as KakaoTalk, in order to create favorable circumstances in any future dispute over unfair dismissal.
In addition, if you intend to argue that you had no choice but to submit a letter of resignation due to the employer’s coercion, it is important to preserve, as far as possible, objective evidence or testimony of the specific circumstances of coercion or pressure (abusive language, statements pressuring resignation, mass distribution of resignation forms, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to manage procedures transparently so that reliance on resignation or mutual termination does not give the impression of attempting to circumvent restrictions on dismissal and so that the voluntariness of the letter of resignation does not later become an issue. Having the employee clearly state the date, reason, and background of preparation in the letter of resignation, and keeping recordings or written records of interviews, can serve as important evidence for the Labor Relations Commission when determining whether there was coercion or duress.
In particular, in the context of mass redundancies or restructuring, the practice of demanding blanket submission of letters of resignation carries a high risk of being evaluated as a declaration of intent not reflecting true intention or as a de facto dismissal. It is therefore advisable to secure individual consent, provide sufficient explanation, ensure that employees have a genuine choice, and, where there is a request to withdraw a resignation, to consider it reasonably within the bounds of good faith.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The employee submitted to the employer a letter of resignation stating that they would resign as of 7 November 2025; ② even in light of the employee’s assertions and the employee’s KakaoTalk messages after the submission of the letter of resignation, it is difficult to find that there was coercion or duress by the employer in the process of submitting the letter of resignation, nor is there any other circumstance confirming such; ③ moreover, after submitting the letter of resignation, the employee, apart from requesting unemployment benefits, neither requested the employer to withdraw the letter of resignation nor expressed any intention to continue working, and in fact left the workplace before the end of working hours after submitting the letter of resignation. In light of these circumstances, it is also difficult to regard the letter of resignation as a declaration of intent not reflecting the employee’s true intention. Taking all of the above into account, the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by mutual agreement when the employer accepted the letter of resignation submitted by the employee, and it is difficult to find that any dismissal existed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
① The employee submitted to the employer a letter of resignation stating that they would resign as of 7 November 2025; ② even in light of the employee’s assertions and the employee’s KakaoTalk messages after the submission of the letter of resignation, it is difficult to find that there was coercion or duress by the employer in the process of submitting the letter of resignation, nor is there any other circumstance confirming such; ③ moreover, after submitting the letter of resignation, the employee, apart from requesting unemployment benefits, neither requested the employer to withdraw the letter of resignation nor expressed any intention to continue working, and in fact left the workplace before the end of working hours after submitting the letter of resignation. In light of these circumstances, it is also difficult to regard the letter of resignation as a declaration of intent not reflecting the employee’s true intention. Taking all of the above into account, the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by mutual agreement when the employer accepted the letter of resignation submitted by the employee, and it is difficult to find that any dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Union Officer Suspension for 6 Months)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, genuine intention behind letter of resignation (KakaoTalk circumstances), 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 Decision Concerning Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Union Officer Suspension for 6 Months),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to genuine intention behind letter of resignation (KakaoTalk circumstances) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Genuine Intention Behind Letter of Resignation (KakaoTalk Circumstances).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “genuine intention behind letter of resignation (KakaoTalk circumstances).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9934 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.13 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: ① The employee, on 2025. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee voluntarily submitted a letter of resignation, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employee argued that they had no choice but to write the letter of resignation due to the employer’s coercion, while the employer contended that the employment relationship had ended by the employee’s voluntary resignation or by mutual agreement.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the letter of resignation submitted by the employee constitutes a declaration of intent not reflecting the employee’s true intention, having been made under the employer’s coercion or duress and therefore amounting in substance to a dismissal (unfair dismissal), or whether, as viewed by the Labor Relations Commission, it should be regarded as a voluntary resignation or mutual termination.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employee explicitly submitted a letter of resignation dated 7 November 2025, that even in light of the surrounding circumstances such as KakaoTalk messages before and after the submission of the letter of resignation it was difficult to find that there had been coercion or duress by the employer, and that after resigning the employee only made demands related to unemployment benefits and never expressed any intention to withdraw the resignation or to continue working, and left the workplace before the end of working hours on that day.
In view of these circumstances, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the employee’s intention to resign as a declaration of intent not reflecting their true intention, and that, by the employer’s acceptance of the resignation, the employment contract had been terminated by mutual agreement (voluntary resignation).
The panel therefore held that no dismissal existed in this case and dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, absent special circumstances, submission of a letter of resignation will be regarded as an expression of intent to resign or to terminate the employment relationship by mutual agreement. If you change your mind after submitting a letter of resignation, you should promptly and clearly express your intention to withdraw the resignation and to continue working, using a method that leaves a record such as KakaoTalk, in order to create favorable circumstances in any future dispute over unfair dismissal.
In addition, if you intend to argue that you had no choice but to submit a letter of resignation due to the employer’s coercion, it is important to preserve, as far as possible, objective evidence or testimony of the specific circumstances of coercion or pressure (abusive language, statements pressuring resignation, mass distribution of resignation forms, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to manage procedures transparently so that reliance on resignation or mutual termination does not give the impression of attempting to circumvent restrictions on dismissal and so that the voluntariness of the letter of resignation does not later become an issue. Having the employee clearly state the date, reason, and background of preparation in the letter of resignation, and keeping recordings or written records of interviews, can serve as important evidence for the Labor Relations Commission when determining whether there was coercion or duress.
In particular, in the context of mass redundancies or restructuring, the practice of demanding blanket submission of letters of resignation carries a high risk of being evaluated as a declaration of intent not reflecting true intention or as a de facto dismissal. It is therefore advisable to secure individual consent, provide sufficient explanation, ensure that employees have a genuine choice, and, where there is a request to withdraw a resignation, to consider it reasonably within the bounds of good faith.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The employee submitted to the employer a letter of resignation stating that they would resign as of 7 November 2025; ② even in light of the employee’s assertions and the employee’s KakaoTalk messages after the submission of the letter of resignation, it is difficult to find that there was coercion or duress by the employer in the process of submitting the letter of resignation, nor is there any other circumstance confirming such; ③ moreover, after submitting the letter of resignation, the employee, apart from requesting unemployment benefits, neither requested the employer to withdraw the letter of resignation nor expressed any intention to continue working, and in fact left the workplace before the end of working hours after submitting the letter of resignation. In light of these circumstances, it is also difficult to regard the letter of resignation as a declaration of intent not reflecting the employee’s true intention. Taking all of the above into account, the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by mutual agreement when the employer accepted the letter of resignation submitted by the employee, and it is difficult to find that any dismissal existed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
① The employee submitted to the employer a letter of resignation stating that they would resign as of 7 November 2025; ② even in light of the employee’s assertions and the employee’s KakaoTalk messages after the submission of the letter of resignation, it is difficult to find that there was coercion or duress by the employer in the process of submitting the letter of resignation, nor is there any other circumstance confirming such; ③ moreover, after submitting the letter of resignation, the employee, apart from requesting unemployment benefits, neither requested the employer to withdraw the letter of resignation nor expressed any intention to continue working, and in fact left the workplace before the end of working hours after submitting the letter of resignation. In light of these circumstances, it is also difficult to regard the letter of resignation as a declaration of intent not reflecting the employee’s true intention. Taking all of the above into account, the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by mutual agreement when the employer accepted the letter of resignation submitted by the employee, and it is difficult to find that any dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Union Officer Suspension for 6 Months)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, genuine intention behind letter of resignation (KakaoTalk circumstances), 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 Decision Concerning Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Union Officer Suspension for 6 Months),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to genuine intention behind letter of resignation (KakaoTalk circumstances) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Genuine Intention Behind Letter of Resignation (KakaoTalk Circumstances).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
