Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Resignation Contrary to True Intent (Handwritten Resignation Following Recommendation to Resign)” (Unfair Dismissal 434)
- Date2026/05/07 04:04
- Read 122
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “resignation contrary to true intent (handwritten resignation following recommendation to resign).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae146 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.30 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: On 31 December 2025, the employee filled in by hand all items on a resignation form—department, position, name, date of birth, date of joining, scheduled date of resignation, duties, contact information after resignation, date of preparation, and name of preparer—and indicated “resignation upon employer’s recommendation” (권고사직) as the reason for resignation, then submitted it to the employer.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee submitted a handwritten resignation letter stating “resignation upon employer’s recommendation,” the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the employee’s resignation had been forced by the employer or whether it constituted a voluntary expression of intent by the employee, and on that basis determined whether unfair dismissal was established.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employer has recommended and exerted pressure for resignation, a resignation letter submitted by the employee stating “resignation upon employer’s recommendation” constitutes a “declaration of intent contrary to true intent” amounting to unfair dismissal, or should instead be regarded as a voluntary resignation by the employee.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee had filled in by hand all items on the resignation form—department, position, name, date of birth, date of joining, scheduled date of resignation, duties, contact information after resignation, date of preparation, and name of preparer—and had expressly stated “resignation upon employer’s recommendation” as the reason for resignation, and that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, there were no circumstances indicating that the employer raised their voice, or engaged in threats, abusive language, assault, or other forms of physical coercion.
Even though the employee claimed to have written the resignation letter as dictated by Director Yu and under unavoidable pressure, the Commission held that it was difficult to find that there had been coercion to such an extent as to deprive the employee of freedom of decision-making.
The Commission determined that the termination in this case should not be viewed as a unilateral dismissal based on the employer’s sole intent, but rather as the termination of the employment relationship based on the employee’s voluntary expression of intent to resign.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee is considering whether to accept a recommendation to resign, if the employee submits a resignation letter in which the reason for resignation, date of resignation, etc. are written out in detail by hand, the Labor Relations Commission is likely to regard this as a voluntary resignation. If the employee felt pressured by the employer, it is important to preserve evidence—such as text messages, audio recordings, or notes—of specific abusive language, threats, intimidation, or explicit warnings of disadvantage in the event of refusal to resign, i.e., circumstances showing that the employee’s freedom of decision-making was deprived.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, when using recommended resignation as part of restructuring or workforce adjustment, it is necessary to ensure procedural transparency so as not to be misunderstood as imposing resignation merely as a formal device to avoid collective redundancies. Specifically, the company should avoid any expressions implying disadvantage if the employee refuses to resign, as well as abusive language, threats, or coercive interviews; provide the employee with a sufficient period for reflection; and keep records of the handwritten preparation of the resignation letter and the course of consultations. These measures will help prevent future disputes over unfair dismissal.
This decision by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates that, in cases where the submission of a resignation letter raises the question of whether the termination constitutes dismissal or voluntary resignation, the Commission makes a comprehensive assessment of whether there was abusive language or threats, the specific circumstances under which the resignation letter was prepared, and whether it was handwritten. Both employees and employers should recognize that the boundary between resignation and dismissal can become the core of a dispute, and should pay particular attention to the process of expressing intent to resign and to securing evidence.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
On 31 December 2025, the employee filled in by hand all items on a resignation form—department, position, name, date of birth, date of joining, scheduled date of resignation, duties, contact information after resignation, date of preparation, and name of preparer—and indicated “resignation upon employer’s recommendation” as the reason for resignation, then submitted it to the employer. The employee asserted that the resignation letter had been written under coercion, following the dictation of Director Yu. However, even according to the employee’s own statement, there was no fact that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, Director Yu raised his voice at the employee, threatened the employee, or used abusive language or physical force. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that there was coercion to such an extent as to deprive the employee of freedom of decision-making at the time of preparing the resignation letter, and it is reasonable to view that the employment relationship was terminated based on the employee’s voluntary expression of intent to resign.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
On 31 December 2025, the employee filled in by hand all items on a resignation form—department, position, name, date of birth, date of joining, scheduled date of resignation, duties, contact information after resignation, date of preparation, and name of preparer—and indicated “resignation upon employer’s recommendation” as the reason for resignation, then submitted it to the employer. The employee asserted that the resignation letter had been written under coercion, following the dictation of Director Yu. However, even according to the employee’s own statement, there was no fact that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, Director Yu raised his voice at the employee, threatened the employee, or used abusive language or physical force. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that there was coercion to such an extent as to deprive the employee of freedom of decision-making at the time of preparing the resignation letter, and it is reasonable to view that the employment relationship was terminated based on the employee’s voluntary expression of intent to resign. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, resignation contrary to true intent (handwritten resignation following recommendation to resign), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Transfer Order (Difficulty in Childcare)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to resignation contrary to true intent (handwritten resignation following recommendation to resign) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Resignation Contrary to True Intent (Handwritten Resignation Following Recommendation to Resign).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “resignation contrary to true intent (handwritten resignation following recommendation to resign).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae146 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.30 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: On 31 December 2025, the employee filled in by hand all items on a resignation form—department, position, name, date of birth, date of joining, scheduled date of resignation, duties, contact information after resignation, date of preparation, and name of preparer—and indicated “resignation upon employer’s recommendation” (권고사직) as the reason for resignation, then submitted it to the employer.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee submitted a handwritten resignation letter stating “resignation upon employer’s recommendation,” the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the employee’s resignation had been forced by the employer or whether it constituted a voluntary expression of intent by the employee, and on that basis determined whether unfair dismissal was established.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employer has recommended and exerted pressure for resignation, a resignation letter submitted by the employee stating “resignation upon employer’s recommendation” constitutes a “declaration of intent contrary to true intent” amounting to unfair dismissal, or should instead be regarded as a voluntary resignation by the employee.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee had filled in by hand all items on the resignation form—department, position, name, date of birth, date of joining, scheduled date of resignation, duties, contact information after resignation, date of preparation, and name of preparer—and had expressly stated “resignation upon employer’s recommendation” as the reason for resignation, and that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, there were no circumstances indicating that the employer raised their voice, or engaged in threats, abusive language, assault, or other forms of physical coercion.
Even though the employee claimed to have written the resignation letter as dictated by Director Yu and under unavoidable pressure, the Commission held that it was difficult to find that there had been coercion to such an extent as to deprive the employee of freedom of decision-making.
The Commission determined that the termination in this case should not be viewed as a unilateral dismissal based on the employer’s sole intent, but rather as the termination of the employment relationship based on the employee’s voluntary expression of intent to resign.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee is considering whether to accept a recommendation to resign, if the employee submits a resignation letter in which the reason for resignation, date of resignation, etc. are written out in detail by hand, the Labor Relations Commission is likely to regard this as a voluntary resignation. If the employee felt pressured by the employer, it is important to preserve evidence—such as text messages, audio recordings, or notes—of specific abusive language, threats, intimidation, or explicit warnings of disadvantage in the event of refusal to resign, i.e., circumstances showing that the employee’s freedom of decision-making was deprived.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, when using recommended resignation as part of restructuring or workforce adjustment, it is necessary to ensure procedural transparency so as not to be misunderstood as imposing resignation merely as a formal device to avoid collective redundancies. Specifically, the company should avoid any expressions implying disadvantage if the employee refuses to resign, as well as abusive language, threats, or coercive interviews; provide the employee with a sufficient period for reflection; and keep records of the handwritten preparation of the resignation letter and the course of consultations. These measures will help prevent future disputes over unfair dismissal.
This decision by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates that, in cases where the submission of a resignation letter raises the question of whether the termination constitutes dismissal or voluntary resignation, the Commission makes a comprehensive assessment of whether there was abusive language or threats, the specific circumstances under which the resignation letter was prepared, and whether it was handwritten. Both employees and employers should recognize that the boundary between resignation and dismissal can become the core of a dispute, and should pay particular attention to the process of expressing intent to resign and to securing evidence.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
On 31 December 2025, the employee filled in by hand all items on a resignation form—department, position, name, date of birth, date of joining, scheduled date of resignation, duties, contact information after resignation, date of preparation, and name of preparer—and indicated “resignation upon employer’s recommendation” as the reason for resignation, then submitted it to the employer. The employee asserted that the resignation letter had been written under coercion, following the dictation of Director Yu. However, even according to the employee’s own statement, there was no fact that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, Director Yu raised his voice at the employee, threatened the employee, or used abusive language or physical force. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that there was coercion to such an extent as to deprive the employee of freedom of decision-making at the time of preparing the resignation letter, and it is reasonable to view that the employment relationship was terminated based on the employee’s voluntary expression of intent to resign.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
On 31 December 2025, the employee filled in by hand all items on a resignation form—department, position, name, date of birth, date of joining, scheduled date of resignation, duties, contact information after resignation, date of preparation, and name of preparer—and indicated “resignation upon employer’s recommendation” as the reason for resignation, then submitted it to the employer. The employee asserted that the resignation letter had been written under coercion, following the dictation of Director Yu. However, even according to the employee’s own statement, there was no fact that, at the time of preparing the resignation letter, Director Yu raised his voice at the employee, threatened the employee, or used abusive language or physical force. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that there was coercion to such an extent as to deprive the employee of freedom of decision-making at the time of preparing the resignation letter, and it is reasonable to view that the employment relationship was terminated based on the employee’s voluntary expression of intent to resign. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, resignation contrary to true intent (handwritten resignation following recommendation to resign), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Transfer Order (Difficulty in Childcare)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to resignation contrary to true intent (handwritten resignation following recommendation to resign) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Resignation Contrary to True Intent (Handwritten Resignation Following Recommendation to Resign).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
