Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning the Existence of Dismissal (Handwritten Resignation Letter) (Unfair Dismissal 25)
- Date2026/01/03 14:10
- Read 200
[Summary]
This post shares an unfair dismissal relief application case concerning the “existence of dismissal (handwritten resignation letter),” in which the employer prevailed, together with its legal implications.
1. Legal Implications
The key issue in this case was:
“When an employee handwrites and submits a resignation letter and then requests an adjustment of the resignation date, does the termination of the employment relationship constitute a dismissal amounting to unfair dismissal, or a termination by resignation/termination by mutual agreement?”
The decision panel in this case found that: the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter on 18 September 2025; on 19 September 2025, the employee specifically asked the HR manager to set the last working day as 13 October 2025, including the use of remaining annual leave; and there was no indication that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship.
Therefore, despite the employee’s argument that the employer had in substance already dismissed the employee and merely obtained a resignation letter in form, that the expression of intent to resign was not genuine, and that the resignation letter was written unavoidably at the employer’s request,
the panel held that there was no unilateral termination of the employment contract by the employer constituting dismissal, and that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign. Accordingly, unfair dismissal was not established.
The distinction between resignation/termination by mutual agreement and dismissal is a key preliminary issue when a labor relations commission determines whether unfair dismissal has occurred. To prove that the case does not involve a dismissal, the employer must systematically present concrete circumstances such as the existence of a resignation letter, the circumstances under which it was prepared, and subsequent discussions regarding annual leave and the final working date. From the employee’s perspective, if the employee cannot prove that the submission of the resignation letter was not a true expression of intent or was the result of coercion or undue pressure, the employee’s freedom to terminate the contract and the Civil Act provisions on declarations of intent will be applied with priority, and the termination may be evaluated as a termination by mutual agreement rather than a dismissal. Since labor relations commissions and courts strictly examine the nature of the cause of termination of the employment contract and the allocation of the burden of proof in order to determine whether dismissal regulations, including those on redundancy dismissals, apply, it is advisable to organize the facts from the initial response stage with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Holding
Taking into account: (i) that the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter on 18 September 2025; (ii) that on 19 September 2025 the employee asked the HR manager to set the last working day as 13 October 2025, including the use of remaining annual leave; and (iii) that there is no fact that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship, it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement upon the employee’s submission of the resignation letter, and that no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
Taking into account: (i) that the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter on 18 September 2025; (ii) that on 19 September 2025 the employee asked the HR manager to set the last working day as 13 October 2025, including the use of remaining annual leave; and (iii) that there is no fact that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship, it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement upon the employee’s submission of the resignation letter, and that no dismissal exists. /
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ Other decisions concerning “existence of dismissal (handwritten resignation letter)” can be found in the search results for “해고존부(자필사직서)” at /kor/cs/board1?sel_search=제목&txt_search=%ED%95%B4%EA%B3%A0%EC%A1%B4%EB%B6%80%28%EC%9E%90%ED%95%84%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%81%EC%84%9C%29.
This post shares an unfair dismissal relief application case concerning the “existence of dismissal (handwritten resignation letter),” in which the employer prevailed, together with its legal implications.
1. Legal Implications
The key issue in this case was:
“When an employee handwrites and submits a resignation letter and then requests an adjustment of the resignation date, does the termination of the employment relationship constitute a dismissal amounting to unfair dismissal, or a termination by resignation/termination by mutual agreement?”
The decision panel in this case found that: the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter on 18 September 2025; on 19 September 2025, the employee specifically asked the HR manager to set the last working day as 13 October 2025, including the use of remaining annual leave; and there was no indication that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship.
Therefore, despite the employee’s argument that the employer had in substance already dismissed the employee and merely obtained a resignation letter in form, that the expression of intent to resign was not genuine, and that the resignation letter was written unavoidably at the employer’s request,
the panel held that there was no unilateral termination of the employment contract by the employer constituting dismissal, and that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement based on the employee’s expression of intent to resign. Accordingly, unfair dismissal was not established.
The distinction between resignation/termination by mutual agreement and dismissal is a key preliminary issue when a labor relations commission determines whether unfair dismissal has occurred. To prove that the case does not involve a dismissal, the employer must systematically present concrete circumstances such as the existence of a resignation letter, the circumstances under which it was prepared, and subsequent discussions regarding annual leave and the final working date. From the employee’s perspective, if the employee cannot prove that the submission of the resignation letter was not a true expression of intent or was the result of coercion or undue pressure, the employee’s freedom to terminate the contract and the Civil Act provisions on declarations of intent will be applied with priority, and the termination may be evaluated as a termination by mutual agreement rather than a dismissal. Since labor relations commissions and courts strictly examine the nature of the cause of termination of the employment contract and the allocation of the burden of proof in order to determine whether dismissal regulations, including those on redundancy dismissals, apply, it is advisable to organize the facts from the initial response stage with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Holding
Taking into account: (i) that the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter on 18 September 2025; (ii) that on 19 September 2025 the employee asked the HR manager to set the last working day as 13 October 2025, including the use of remaining annual leave; and (iii) that there is no fact that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship, it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement upon the employee’s submission of the resignation letter, and that no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
Taking into account: (i) that the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter on 18 September 2025; (ii) that on 19 September 2025 the employee asked the HR manager to set the last working day as 13 October 2025, including the use of remaining annual leave; and (iii) that there is no fact that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship, it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement upon the employee’s submission of the resignation letter, and that no dismissal exists. /
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ Other decisions concerning “existence of dismissal (handwritten resignation letter)” can be found in the search results for “해고존부(자필사직서)” at /kor/cs/board1?sel_search=제목&txt_search=%ED%95%B4%EA%B3%A0%EC%A1%B4%EB%B6%80%28%EC%9E%90%ED%95%84%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%81%EC%84%9C%29.
