[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of forced resignation (removal from team chatroom).” Date of decision: 2026-07-01 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1429 Key issue summary: ① Between the parties in 2026. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, alleging that they had been forced to resign by the employer. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission held, based on text messages exchanged between the parties and other evidence, that the employment contract had been terminated by mutual agreement. In disputes over alleged unfair dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission considers text messages, recorded interviews, and whether the employee reported to work thereafter in order to determine whether there was a dismissal or a voluntary resignation/termination by agreement. Labor Law Firm Law& emphasizes the importance of evidence collection and proper application of legal principles in this type of case. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employee claims not to have had any intention to resign, the termination of the employment relationship, viewed in light of the text messages, interview process, and other circumstances, constitutes an unfair dismissal by the employer or can be regarded as a termination by agreement between the employee and the employer. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case found that, in the text messages exchanged on January 26 and 27, 2026, the employee proposed termination of the employment contract and the employer accepted, specifying February 13, 2026 as the termination date; that there was no indication the employer unilaterally set the termination date or used its superior position to coerce the employee; and that, according to the recorded interview, the conversation did not amount to a notice of dismissal but remained a discussion on how to prepare the resignation letter and how to state the reasons for resignation. The panel further found that the mere fact that the employee was removed from the team chatroom could not, by itself, be regarded as an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss; that there was no indication that the employee thereafter requested to be re-invited or asked for an explanation; and that the employee did not report to work after February 8, 2026 and never expressed any intention to return to work or to provide labor. Taking all of these circumstances into account, the panel held that there was no “dismissal” in this case, and that the employment relationship had been terminated by agreement, with the employee offering to terminate the employment contract and the employer accepting while specifying the termination date. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) If an employee clearly states in texts, messenger conversations, or recorded calls that they “will work until [a certain date]” or “will quit,” it may become very difficult to later retract that statement and claim unfair dismissal. If you do not intend to resign or agree to termination, you should clearly ask and confirm during any meeting whether what is occurring is a dismissal or merely a discussion. If you determine that the employer is taking a unilateral measure such as a redundancy dismissal, you should immediately raise an objection and clearly express your intention to continue reporting to work and providing labor. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the company’s standpoint, it is important for dispute prevention to obtain the employee’s intention to resign or to terminate by agreement clearly in writing or by text, and to specifically agree on the termination date, treatment of remaining annual leave, wage settlement, and related matters. If, during interviews, expressions suggesting dismissal are mixed with language about encouraging or discussing resignation, the matter may escalate into an unfair dismissal dispute. Accordingly, employers should ensure that the wording and procedures clearly distinguish between unilateral dismissal by the employer (such as redundancy) and voluntary resignation/termination by agreement by the employee. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that the employment relationship was terminated by agreement and that there was no dismissal. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (1) It was confirmed from the text messages exchanged between the parties on January 26 and 27, 2026 that they agreed to terminate the employment relationship as of February 13, 2026; (2) there was no indication that the employer unilaterally set February 13, 2026 as the termination date or that the employer’s superior position or coercion was involved in that process; (3) the employee argued that, during the interview on February 8, 2026, the employer’s act of pressuring the employee to prepare a resignation letter and stating that, if the employee refused, the matter would be treated as an unauthorized resignation, amounted to a notice of dismissal. However, the transcript shows that the topic of conversation consistently concerned the preparation of the resignation letter and how to state the reasons for resignation, and thus appears to be a discussion on the method of resignation rather than a notice of dismissal; (4) removal from the team chatroom may be a measure for internal communication convenience or conflict management, and by itself is difficult to regard as an expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship, and there is no indication that the employee thereafter asked about the reason for removal or requested to be re-invited; (5) the employee did not report to work after February 8, 2026 and did not express any intention to return to work or to provide labor. In light of all of the above, the Commission held that the employment relationship was terminated by agreement, with the employee offering to terminate the employment relationship and the employer accepting and setting February 13, 2026 as the termination date, and that there was no dismissal. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Interest in Relief/Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Phone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of forced resignation (removal from team chatroom), 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 Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract (3-Year Fixed-Term)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to denial of forced resignation (removal from team chatroom) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Forced Resignation (Removal from Team Chatroom).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article