Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on the Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Text Message) (Unfair Dismissal 403)
- Date2026/04/25 04:14
- Read 153
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (resignation text message).”
Adjudicating Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9990 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case Result: Dismissed
Key Issue Summary: ① On 2025. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, asserting that the employer had in substance dismissed him. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission determined the cause of termination of the employment relationship by comprehensively considering the employer’s recommendation to resign, the employee’s subsequent attendance at work, his employment at another workplace, the content of text messages, and the circumstances surrounding the employment insurance disqualification report.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where, after the employer told the employee to “look for another job,” the employee was absent without leave, then found employment at another workplace, and thereafter notified the employer by text message that he was “resigning,” the termination of the employment relationship constitutes an unfair dismissal, or whether it can be regarded as a voluntary resignation (termination by mutual agreement) by the employee.
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case found that, although on 2025. 12. 9. the employer recommended that the employee resign by telling him to look for another job, the employee did not agree to an immediate termination of the employment relationship, instead asking for about one month; that the employee continued to report to work thereafter but did not come to work on the workday of 12. 15. and instead took up employment at another workplace; that on 12. 16. the employee sent the employer a text message explicitly expressing his intention to resign, stating “I resign as of the 15th”; and that the employer, based on this absence without leave and the resignation text message, filed an employment insurance disqualification report.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the employment relationship did not terminate by way of a unilateral dismissal by the employer, but rather by mutual agreement based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign.
The Commission therefore held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case and ruled that the alleged dismissal was unfounded.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that when they explicitly state via electronic means such as text message or KakaoTalk, “I resign,” or “I will quit as of [a certain date],” such expressions will generally be recognized as a manifestation of intent to resign. In addition, even if the employer has recommended resignation, if the employee subsequently is absent without leave while taking up employment at another workplace and clearly expresses his or her intention to resign, the Labor Relations Commission is highly likely to view the termination as a resignation or termination by mutual agreement rather than a dismissal.
In particular, to successfully assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to systematically prove specific circumstances such as whether there was a unilateral notice of termination of the employment contract by the employer, whether the expression of intent to resign was not genuine due to duress or deceit, or whether any withdrawal of the resignation was lawfully made.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, expressions such as “look for another job” or “it would be better for you to quit” can become the starting point of future unfair dismissal disputes. Therefore, when proceeding with a recommended resignation, it is advisable to clearly record, as far as possible in writing or via audio recording, the circumstances of the interview, confirmation of the employee’s intent, and the content of the discussions. Furthermore, when an employee expresses an intention to resign, the employer should specifically secure the resignation letter, text messages, or messenger records, and manage the grounds for termination of the employment relationship consistently, for example by aligning the stated reason in the employment insurance disqualification report with those records.
In addition, unlike redundancy dismissals, resignation or termination by mutual agreement is a form of termination of the employment relationship that reflects the employee’s will. Employers should therefore establish procedures that can objectively prove that the termination was based on the employee’s genuine and voluntary choice, so that it does not become a merely formal “voluntary resignation” used to circumvent dismissal restrictions or a resignation that was in fact coerced.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
① On 2025. 12. 9., when the employer recommended that the employee resign by telling him to look for another job, the employee asked for about one month; ② the employee continued to report to work after 2025. 12. 9., but on the workday of 2025. 12. 15. did not report to work and instead took up employment at another workplace; ③ on 2025. 12. 16., the employee sent the employer a text message stating, “I resign as of the 15th”; and ④ the employer, based on the employee’s absence without leave and the resignation text message, filed an employment insurance disqualification report. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign, rather than by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore that no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
① On 2025. 12. 9., when the employer recommended that the employee resign by telling him to look for another job, the employee asked for about one month; ② the employee continued to report to work after 2025. 12. 9., but on the workday of 2025. 12. 15. did not report to work and instead took up employment at another workplace; ③ on 2025. 12. 16., the employee sent the employer a text message stating, “I resign as of the 15th”; and ④ the employer, based on the employee’s absence without leave and the resignation text message, filed an employment insurance disqualification report. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign, rather than by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation by Telephone Conversation)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on the Existence of Dismissal (Recommended Resignation Interview)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on the Exclusion Period (Complaint Filed via Government24)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (resignation text message), 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on the Exclusion Period (Complaint Filed via Government24),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (resignation text message) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Text Message)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (resignation text message).”
Adjudicating Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9990 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case Result: Dismissed
Key Issue Summary: ① On 2025. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, asserting that the employer had in substance dismissed him. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission determined the cause of termination of the employment relationship by comprehensively considering the employer’s recommendation to resign, the employee’s subsequent attendance at work, his employment at another workplace, the content of text messages, and the circumstances surrounding the employment insurance disqualification report.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where, after the employer told the employee to “look for another job,” the employee was absent without leave, then found employment at another workplace, and thereafter notified the employer by text message that he was “resigning,” the termination of the employment relationship constitutes an unfair dismissal, or whether it can be regarded as a voluntary resignation (termination by mutual agreement) by the employee.
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case found that, although on 2025. 12. 9. the employer recommended that the employee resign by telling him to look for another job, the employee did not agree to an immediate termination of the employment relationship, instead asking for about one month; that the employee continued to report to work thereafter but did not come to work on the workday of 12. 15. and instead took up employment at another workplace; that on 12. 16. the employee sent the employer a text message explicitly expressing his intention to resign, stating “I resign as of the 15th”; and that the employer, based on this absence without leave and the resignation text message, filed an employment insurance disqualification report.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the employment relationship did not terminate by way of a unilateral dismissal by the employer, but rather by mutual agreement based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign.
The Commission therefore held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case and ruled that the alleged dismissal was unfounded.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that when they explicitly state via electronic means such as text message or KakaoTalk, “I resign,” or “I will quit as of [a certain date],” such expressions will generally be recognized as a manifestation of intent to resign. In addition, even if the employer has recommended resignation, if the employee subsequently is absent without leave while taking up employment at another workplace and clearly expresses his or her intention to resign, the Labor Relations Commission is highly likely to view the termination as a resignation or termination by mutual agreement rather than a dismissal.
In particular, to successfully assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to systematically prove specific circumstances such as whether there was a unilateral notice of termination of the employment contract by the employer, whether the expression of intent to resign was not genuine due to duress or deceit, or whether any withdrawal of the resignation was lawfully made.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, expressions such as “look for another job” or “it would be better for you to quit” can become the starting point of future unfair dismissal disputes. Therefore, when proceeding with a recommended resignation, it is advisable to clearly record, as far as possible in writing or via audio recording, the circumstances of the interview, confirmation of the employee’s intent, and the content of the discussions. Furthermore, when an employee expresses an intention to resign, the employer should specifically secure the resignation letter, text messages, or messenger records, and manage the grounds for termination of the employment relationship consistently, for example by aligning the stated reason in the employment insurance disqualification report with those records.
In addition, unlike redundancy dismissals, resignation or termination by mutual agreement is a form of termination of the employment relationship that reflects the employee’s will. Employers should therefore establish procedures that can objectively prove that the termination was based on the employee’s genuine and voluntary choice, so that it does not become a merely formal “voluntary resignation” used to circumvent dismissal restrictions or a resignation that was in fact coerced.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
① On 2025. 12. 9., when the employer recommended that the employee resign by telling him to look for another job, the employee asked for about one month; ② the employee continued to report to work after 2025. 12. 9., but on the workday of 2025. 12. 15. did not report to work and instead took up employment at another workplace; ③ on 2025. 12. 16., the employee sent the employer a text message stating, “I resign as of the 15th”; and ④ the employer, based on the employee’s absence without leave and the resignation text message, filed an employment insurance disqualification report. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign, rather than by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore that no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
① On 2025. 12. 9., when the employer recommended that the employee resign by telling him to look for another job, the employee asked for about one month; ② the employee continued to report to work after 2025. 12. 9., but on the workday of 2025. 12. 15. did not report to work and instead took up employment at another workplace; ③ on 2025. 12. 16., the employee sent the employer a text message stating, “I resign as of the 15th”; and ④ the employer, based on the employee’s absence without leave and the resignation text message, filed an employment insurance disqualification report. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission determined that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign, rather than by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation by Telephone Conversation)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on the Existence of Dismissal (Recommended Resignation Interview)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on the Exclusion Period (Complaint Filed via Government24)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (resignation text message), 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 Case Law” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on the Exclusion Period (Complaint Filed via Government24),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (resignation text message) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Text Message)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
