[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “mutual termination (resignation intention due to discrepancy in employment contract terms).” Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae542 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-30 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: Where an employee expressed an intention to terminate the employment contract due to a discrepancy between the actual terms of the employment contract and what had been explained, the employer accepted this and guided the employee on final wage settlement, and the employee returned the keys, it is reasonable to view that the employment contract was terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. Accordingly, it is difficult to regard this as a dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract against the employee’s will. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee expressed an intention to terminate the employment contract, stating that the actual terms of the employment contract differed from what had been explained, and that they would therefore no longer work. Following this, final wage settlement and the return of keys were carried out between the employee and the employer. The employee subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and the issue before the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission was whether unfair dismissal had occurred. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, “where an employee, citing a discrepancy in the employment contract terms, voluntarily expresses an intention to terminate the employment contract, and in the process of the employer accepting this, the return of keys and guidance on final wage settlement take place, such a situation can be viewed as unfair dismissal, or whether, unlike typical collective redundancies or disciplinary dismissals handled by the Labor Relations Commission and Labor Law Firm Law&, it should instead be regarded as a resignation based on ‘mutual termination’ between the parties.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that the employee clearly expressed an intention to terminate the employment contract on their own initiative due to the discrepancy in the employment contract terms; that, in response, the employer provided guidance on final wage settlement and the employee returned the company keys, thereby no longer maintaining a relationship premised on the provision of labor; and that, considering this sequence of events as a whole, it is appropriate to view the employment contract as having been terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. In light of the above, the panel held that it is difficult to regard the employer’s action as an unfair dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract against the employee’s will. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be aware that if they make statements or send messages to the effect of “I will quit because the conditions do not match,” and then engage in conduct such as returning access cards or keys and accepting final wage settlement, the Labor Relations Commission may evaluate this as a resignation or mutual termination. Even if you feel that the terms of the employment contract differ from what was explained, if you do not actually intend to leave the company, you should refrain from hastily expressing an intention to resign. Instead, first make a written request for correction, or consult with an expert such as Labor Law Firm Law& before responding. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the company’s standpoint, when an employee mentions resignation due to a discrepancy in conditions, it is important to clearly confirm whether this is merely an expression of dissatisfaction or a genuine intention to resign, and, where possible, to document it in writing (letter of resignation, mutual termination agreement). In addition, to prevent misunderstandings during the explanation of employment contract terms from leading to resignations or disputes, employers should, at the recruitment stage, provide and explain in writing specific details of key terms such as wages and working hours. Employers should also avoid the practice of effectively forcing employees to resign in lieu of implementing collective redundancies or disciplinary dismissals, as such practices may lead to unfair dismissal disputes. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History Where an employee expressed an intention to terminate the employment contract due to a discrepancy in the employment contract terms, the employer accepted this and provided guidance on final wage settlement, and the employee returned the keys, it is reasonable to view that the employment contract was terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. Accordingly, it is difficult to regard this as a dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract against the employee’s will. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Where an employee expressed an intention to terminate the employment contract due to a discrepancy in the employment contract terms, the employer accepted this and provided guidance on final wage settlement, and the employee returned the keys, it is reasonable to view that the employment contract was terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. Accordingly, it is difficult to regard this as a dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract against the employee’s will. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Number of Regular Employees (Business with Fewer than 5 Employees)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, mutual termination (resignation intention due to discrepancy in employment contract terms), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Number of Regular Employees (Business with Fewer than 5 Employees)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to mutual termination (resignation intention due to discrepancy in employment contract terms) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Mutual Termination (Resignation Intention Due to Discrepancy in Employment Contract Terms).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article