Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on the Existence of Dismissal (“I will quit” Oral Statement) in an Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 444)
- Date2026/05/11 04:08
- Read 109
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (‘I will quit’ oral statement).”
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae77 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.26 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) It was confirmed that the employee expressed an intention to resign by stating “I will quit,” but there was no confirmation of any unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer; (ii) there was no evidentiary material to substantiate the employee’s allegations of harassment and verbal abuse; (iii) it could not be concluded that the employer was aware that the employee’s expression of intent to resign did not reflect his or her true intention; and (iv) the employee’s intention to continue working was not confirmed, and the employee had requested unemployment benefits. In light of these factors, the dismissal…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that he or she had in effect been unfairly dismissed due to the employer’s harassment and verbal abuse. However, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that no dismissal existed in the first place.
The employee asserted that the employment relationship had ended and sought to receive unemployment benefits, while at the same time characterizing the cause of termination as unfair dismissal. The employer argued that the employee had voluntarily expressed an intention to resign by saying “I will quit.” This type of case is frequently encountered in practice at Labor Law Firm Law&, and concerns the boundary between unfair dismissal and resignation/termination by mutual agreement.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee told the employer “I will quit,” the subsequent termination of the employment relationship should be viewed as an unfair dismissal or as the employee’s voluntary resignation, and further, whether the premise of a “dismissal” is established at all.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that there was no evidence that the employer had unilaterally expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship (dismissal) vis-à-vis the employee; that there was no objective evidence to substantiate the employee’s allegations of workplace harassment and verbal abuse; that it was difficult to conclude that the employer recognized the employee’s statement “I will quit” as not reflecting the employee’s true intention; and that the employee’s intention to continue working was not clearly demonstrated and, on the contrary, there were circumstances indicating that the employee had requested unemployment benefits.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that no dismissal existed in this case and dismissed the application for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee, in a moment of heightened emotion, makes a statement to the effect of resignation such as “I will quit,” the employee should be aware that, if he or she later seeks to retract that statement, a considerable burden of proof may arise.
In particular, to assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to secure as much objective material as possible—such as text messages, audio recordings, and HR documents—that can demonstrate a unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer.
Furthermore, if an employee intends to contest a resignation or alleged unfair dismissal on the grounds of workplace harassment or verbal abuse, it is important to contemporaneously record and preserve the circumstances, and to systematically retain evidence such as co‑worker statements and internal reports.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even where an employee orally expresses an intention to resign, it is advisable to clearly document that intention in writing—through submission of a resignation letter or preparation of a confirmation statement—in order to prevent future disputes over unfair dismissal.
In addition, to prepare for possible allegations of workplace harassment or verbal abuse, employers should objectively record and retain the contents of interviews, the background and process of guidance or reprimands, and related statements. This will enable the employer to clearly explain the boundary between resignation and dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
By consulting with labor‑law specialists such as Labor Law Firm Law& and establishing in advance proper procedures and evidentiary systems for resignation and dismissal, employers can significantly reduce unnecessary disputes over unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) It was confirmed that the employee expressed an intention to resign by stating “I will quit,” but there was no confirmation of any unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer; (ii) there was no evidentiary material to substantiate the employee’s allegations of harassment and verbal abuse; (iii) it could not be concluded that the employer was aware that the employee’s expression of intent to resign did not reflect his or her true intention; and (iv) the employee’s intention to continue working was not confirmed, and the employee had requested unemployment benefits. In light of these factors, the Commission held that no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(i) It was confirmed that the employee expressed an intention to resign by stating “I will quit,” but there was no confirmation of any unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer; (ii) there was no evidentiary material to substantiate the employee’s allegations of harassment and verbal abuse; (iii) it could not be concluded that the employer was aware that the employee’s expression of intent to resign did not reflect his or her true intention; and (iv) the employee’s intention to continue working was not confirmed, and the employee had requested unemployment benefits. In light of these factors, the Commission held that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Conversion to Indefinite‑Term Contract (Repeated Renewal of Fixed‑Term Contract)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (“I will quit” oral statement), 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, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Conversion to Indefinite‑Term Contract (Repeated Renewal of Fixed‑Term Contract),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to the existence of dismissal (“I will quit” oral statement) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on the Existence of Dismissal (‘I will quit’ Oral Statement).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (‘I will quit’ oral statement).”
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae77 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.26 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) It was confirmed that the employee expressed an intention to resign by stating “I will quit,” but there was no confirmation of any unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer; (ii) there was no evidentiary material to substantiate the employee’s allegations of harassment and verbal abuse; (iii) it could not be concluded that the employer was aware that the employee’s expression of intent to resign did not reflect his or her true intention; and (iv) the employee’s intention to continue working was not confirmed, and the employee had requested unemployment benefits. In light of these factors, the dismissal…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming that he or she had in effect been unfairly dismissed due to the employer’s harassment and verbal abuse. However, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that no dismissal existed in the first place.
The employee asserted that the employment relationship had ended and sought to receive unemployment benefits, while at the same time characterizing the cause of termination as unfair dismissal. The employer argued that the employee had voluntarily expressed an intention to resign by saying “I will quit.” This type of case is frequently encountered in practice at Labor Law Firm Law&, and concerns the boundary between unfair dismissal and resignation/termination by mutual agreement.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee told the employer “I will quit,” the subsequent termination of the employment relationship should be viewed as an unfair dismissal or as the employee’s voluntary resignation, and further, whether the premise of a “dismissal” is established at all.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that there was no evidence that the employer had unilaterally expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship (dismissal) vis-à-vis the employee; that there was no objective evidence to substantiate the employee’s allegations of workplace harassment and verbal abuse; that it was difficult to conclude that the employer recognized the employee’s statement “I will quit” as not reflecting the employee’s true intention; and that the employee’s intention to continue working was not clearly demonstrated and, on the contrary, there were circumstances indicating that the employee had requested unemployment benefits.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that no dismissal existed in this case and dismissed the application for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee, in a moment of heightened emotion, makes a statement to the effect of resignation such as “I will quit,” the employee should be aware that, if he or she later seeks to retract that statement, a considerable burden of proof may arise.
In particular, to assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to secure as much objective material as possible—such as text messages, audio recordings, and HR documents—that can demonstrate a unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer.
Furthermore, if an employee intends to contest a resignation or alleged unfair dismissal on the grounds of workplace harassment or verbal abuse, it is important to contemporaneously record and preserve the circumstances, and to systematically retain evidence such as co‑worker statements and internal reports.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even where an employee orally expresses an intention to resign, it is advisable to clearly document that intention in writing—through submission of a resignation letter or preparation of a confirmation statement—in order to prevent future disputes over unfair dismissal.
In addition, to prepare for possible allegations of workplace harassment or verbal abuse, employers should objectively record and retain the contents of interviews, the background and process of guidance or reprimands, and related statements. This will enable the employer to clearly explain the boundary between resignation and dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
By consulting with labor‑law specialists such as Labor Law Firm Law& and establishing in advance proper procedures and evidentiary systems for resignation and dismissal, employers can significantly reduce unnecessary disputes over unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) It was confirmed that the employee expressed an intention to resign by stating “I will quit,” but there was no confirmation of any unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer; (ii) there was no evidentiary material to substantiate the employee’s allegations of harassment and verbal abuse; (iii) it could not be concluded that the employer was aware that the employee’s expression of intent to resign did not reflect his or her true intention; and (iv) the employee’s intention to continue working was not confirmed, and the employee had requested unemployment benefits. In light of these factors, the Commission held that no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(i) It was confirmed that the employee expressed an intention to resign by stating “I will quit,” but there was no confirmation of any unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer; (ii) there was no evidentiary material to substantiate the employee’s allegations of harassment and verbal abuse; (iii) it could not be concluded that the employer was aware that the employee’s expression of intent to resign did not reflect his or her true intention; and (iv) the employee’s intention to continue working was not confirmed, and the employee had requested unemployment benefits. In light of these factors, the Commission held that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Conversion to Indefinite‑Term Contract (Repeated Renewal of Fixed‑Term Contract)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (“I will quit” oral statement), 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, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Conversion to Indefinite‑Term Contract (Repeated Renewal of Fixed‑Term Contract),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to the existence of dismissal (“I will quit” oral statement) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on the Existence of Dismissal (‘I will quit’ Oral Statement).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
