Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Genuineness of Intent (Resignation under Pressure/Harassment)” (Unfair Dismissal 456)
- Date2026/05/17 04:08
- Read 104
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the issue of “genuineness of intent (resignation under pressure/harassment)” was raised and the initial decision was upheld by the Central Labor Relations Commission.
Adjudicating Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9176 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.24 · Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues: The employee argued that, after being notified of dismissal on 21 May 2025, they felt psychological pressure due to the employer’s changes to the reporting system, surveillance, pressure regarding sales performance, insulting remarks, and harassment, and therefore submitted a resignation letter, which should be regarded as a de facto unfair dismissal. However, it was confirmed that the employee first sent a text message expressing an intention to resign and then, on 30 June 2025, signed a handwritten resignation letter. At the initial hearing, the employee also testified that, when they expressed their intention to resign on 19 June 2025, there was no external interference or coercion. In light of these facts, even if there had been oppressive management and abusive language, it appeared that the employee, having judged that it was impossible to continue working in those circumstances, voluntarily submitted the resignation letter. Accordingly, the Commission found that no dismissal existed and that the expression of intent to resign could not easily be regarded as a declaration of intent that did not reflect the employee’s true intention.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This re‑examination case for remedy of unfair dismissal concerned a dispute before the Central Labor Relations Commission over whether a resignation letter submitted by an employee, after receiving a dismissal notice and amid a deteriorating work environment and harassment, reflected a genuine intention to resign. The employee claimed that, due to the employer’s changes to the reporting system, surveillance, pressure regarding sales performance, insulting remarks, and harassment, they were under psychological pressure and had no choice but to submit a resignation letter, which in substance amounted to an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether a resignation letter submitted under the employer’s pressure and harassment after a dismissal notice constitutes a declaration of intent that does not reflect the employee’s true intention, and thus whether the employment relationship ended by dismissal or by resignation—in other words, whether an unfair dismissal existed.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Decision
The panel held that the employee first expressed an intention to resign by text message and then signed a handwritten resignation letter; that at the initial hearing the employee testified that, when they expressed their intention to resign on 19 June 2025, there was no external interference or coercion; and that, even if there had been oppressive management and abusive language, it appeared that the employee, having judged that it was impossible to continue working in those circumstances, voluntarily submitted the resignation letter.
Accordingly, the panel found that no dismissal existed in this case, and that it was difficult to regard the employee’s expression of intent to resign, as manifested by the submission of the resignation letter, as a declaration of intent that did not reflect their true intention.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, once they submit a resignation letter or clearly express an intention to resign by text message, email, or similar means, the employment relationship may be deemed terminated, absent special circumstances, on the basis of a notice of termination or an offer to terminate by mutual agreement under the Civil Act. Even where there has been abusive language or harassment by the employer, if the employee clearly states that they will resign of their own accord and later testifies that there was no coercion, it may be difficult to subsequently challenge the termination as an unfair dismissal. Employees are therefore advised to seek advice before emotionally expressing an intention to resign.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even where an employee has submitted a resignation letter, if there are circumstances suggesting a lack of genuineness—such as strong inducement, threats, or collective submission of resignations—the matter may later develop into an unfair dismissal dispute. Employers should secure objective evidence, such as records of interviews, audio recordings, and written statements, to demonstrate that there was no coercion in the process of expressing the intention to resign. In situations involving redundancy or restructuring, it is also necessary to clearly distinguish, in both procedures and wording, between voluntary retirement/resignation and dismissal, so as not to conflate the two.
This decision reaffirms the legal principles on “distinguishing resignation/mutual termination from dismissal” and “the scope of recognizing declarations of intent that do not reflect the true intention” in unfair dismissal disputes. Both employees and employers should bear in mind that submitting a resignation letter is not a mere formality, but a significant legal act concerning the termination of the employment relationship.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that, after being notified of dismissal on 21 May 2025, they felt psychological pressure due to the employer’s changes to the reporting system, surveillance, pressure regarding sales performance, insulting remarks, and harassment, and therefore submitted a resignation letter. However, it was confirmed that the employee first sent a text message expressing an intention to resign and then, on 30 June 2025, signed a handwritten resignation letter. It was also found that, at the initial hearing, the employee testified that, when they expressed their intention to resign on 19 June 2025, there was no external interference or coercion. In light of these facts, even if the employee did not truly wish to resign in their heart due to oppressive management and abusive language, it appears that they judged it impossible to continue working in those circumstances and therefore submitted the resignation letter. It is thus difficult to regard this as a declaration of intent that did not reflect their true intention. Accordingly, the employment relationship was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign through the submission of the resignation letter, and no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Decision
The employee argued that, after being notified of dismissal on 21 May 2025, they felt psychological pressure due to the employer’s changes to the reporting system, surveillance, pressure regarding sales performance, insulting remarks, and harassment, and therefore submitted a resignation letter. However, it was confirmed that the employee first sent a text message expressing an intention to resign and then, on 30 June 2025, signed a handwritten resignation letter. It was also found that, at the initial hearing, the employee testified that, when they expressed their intention to resign on 19 June 2025, there was no external interference or coercion. In light of these facts, even if the employee did not truly wish to resign in their heart due to oppressive management and abusive language, it appears that they judged it impossible to continue working in those circumstances and therefore submitted the resignation letter. It is thus difficult to regard this as a declaration of intent that did not reflect their true intention. Accordingly, the employment relationship was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign through the submission of the resignation letter, and no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissal of Application
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non‑formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, genuineness of intent (resignation under pressure/harassment), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non‑recognition of Employee Status (Hostess at Entertainment Establishment),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to genuineness of intent (resignation under pressure/harassment) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Genuineness of Intent (Resignation under Pressure/Harassment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the issue of “genuineness of intent (resignation under pressure/harassment)” was raised and the initial decision was upheld by the Central Labor Relations Commission.
Adjudicating Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9176 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.24 · Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues: The employee argued that, after being notified of dismissal on 21 May 2025, they felt psychological pressure due to the employer’s changes to the reporting system, surveillance, pressure regarding sales performance, insulting remarks, and harassment, and therefore submitted a resignation letter, which should be regarded as a de facto unfair dismissal. However, it was confirmed that the employee first sent a text message expressing an intention to resign and then, on 30 June 2025, signed a handwritten resignation letter. At the initial hearing, the employee also testified that, when they expressed their intention to resign on 19 June 2025, there was no external interference or coercion. In light of these facts, even if there had been oppressive management and abusive language, it appeared that the employee, having judged that it was impossible to continue working in those circumstances, voluntarily submitted the resignation letter. Accordingly, the Commission found that no dismissal existed and that the expression of intent to resign could not easily be regarded as a declaration of intent that did not reflect the employee’s true intention.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This re‑examination case for remedy of unfair dismissal concerned a dispute before the Central Labor Relations Commission over whether a resignation letter submitted by an employee, after receiving a dismissal notice and amid a deteriorating work environment and harassment, reflected a genuine intention to resign. The employee claimed that, due to the employer’s changes to the reporting system, surveillance, pressure regarding sales performance, insulting remarks, and harassment, they were under psychological pressure and had no choice but to submit a resignation letter, which in substance amounted to an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether a resignation letter submitted under the employer’s pressure and harassment after a dismissal notice constitutes a declaration of intent that does not reflect the employee’s true intention, and thus whether the employment relationship ended by dismissal or by resignation—in other words, whether an unfair dismissal existed.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Decision
The panel held that the employee first expressed an intention to resign by text message and then signed a handwritten resignation letter; that at the initial hearing the employee testified that, when they expressed their intention to resign on 19 June 2025, there was no external interference or coercion; and that, even if there had been oppressive management and abusive language, it appeared that the employee, having judged that it was impossible to continue working in those circumstances, voluntarily submitted the resignation letter.
Accordingly, the panel found that no dismissal existed in this case, and that it was difficult to regard the employee’s expression of intent to resign, as manifested by the submission of the resignation letter, as a declaration of intent that did not reflect their true intention.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, once they submit a resignation letter or clearly express an intention to resign by text message, email, or similar means, the employment relationship may be deemed terminated, absent special circumstances, on the basis of a notice of termination or an offer to terminate by mutual agreement under the Civil Act. Even where there has been abusive language or harassment by the employer, if the employee clearly states that they will resign of their own accord and later testifies that there was no coercion, it may be difficult to subsequently challenge the termination as an unfair dismissal. Employees are therefore advised to seek advice before emotionally expressing an intention to resign.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even where an employee has submitted a resignation letter, if there are circumstances suggesting a lack of genuineness—such as strong inducement, threats, or collective submission of resignations—the matter may later develop into an unfair dismissal dispute. Employers should secure objective evidence, such as records of interviews, audio recordings, and written statements, to demonstrate that there was no coercion in the process of expressing the intention to resign. In situations involving redundancy or restructuring, it is also necessary to clearly distinguish, in both procedures and wording, between voluntary retirement/resignation and dismissal, so as not to conflate the two.
This decision reaffirms the legal principles on “distinguishing resignation/mutual termination from dismissal” and “the scope of recognizing declarations of intent that do not reflect the true intention” in unfair dismissal disputes. Both employees and employers should bear in mind that submitting a resignation letter is not a mere formality, but a significant legal act concerning the termination of the employment relationship.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that, after being notified of dismissal on 21 May 2025, they felt psychological pressure due to the employer’s changes to the reporting system, surveillance, pressure regarding sales performance, insulting remarks, and harassment, and therefore submitted a resignation letter. However, it was confirmed that the employee first sent a text message expressing an intention to resign and then, on 30 June 2025, signed a handwritten resignation letter. It was also found that, at the initial hearing, the employee testified that, when they expressed their intention to resign on 19 June 2025, there was no external interference or coercion. In light of these facts, even if the employee did not truly wish to resign in their heart due to oppressive management and abusive language, it appears that they judged it impossible to continue working in those circumstances and therefore submitted the resignation letter. It is thus difficult to regard this as a declaration of intent that did not reflect their true intention. Accordingly, the employment relationship was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign through the submission of the resignation letter, and no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Decision
The employee argued that, after being notified of dismissal on 21 May 2025, they felt psychological pressure due to the employer’s changes to the reporting system, surveillance, pressure regarding sales performance, insulting remarks, and harassment, and therefore submitted a resignation letter. However, it was confirmed that the employee first sent a text message expressing an intention to resign and then, on 30 June 2025, signed a handwritten resignation letter. It was also found that, at the initial hearing, the employee testified that, when they expressed their intention to resign on 19 June 2025, there was no external interference or coercion. In light of these facts, even if the employee did not truly wish to resign in their heart due to oppressive management and abusive language, it appears that they judged it impossible to continue working in those circumstances and therefore submitted the resignation letter. It is thus difficult to regard this as a declaration of intent that did not reflect their true intention. Accordingly, the employment relationship was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign through the submission of the resignation letter, and no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissal of Application
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non‑formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, genuineness of intent (resignation under pressure/harassment), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Non‑recognition of Employee Status (Hostess at Entertainment Establishment),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to genuineness of intent (resignation under pressure/harassment) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Genuineness of Intent (Resignation under Pressure/Harassment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
