[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (leaving the workplace after work).” Decision date: 2026-06-29 · Labor Relations Commission: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae528 Key issue summary: Although it was acknowledged that, during the interview on 26 March 2026, the employer repeatedly made remarks to the employee to the effect of “I’d like to sort this out,” thereby proposing termination of the employment relationship, the specific date on which the employment relationship would end was not identified, and, in response to the employer’s remarks, the employee ultimately stated, “I’ll just leave right now,” and so on. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal relief application case was handled by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. The core issue was whether an actual dismissal existed in a situation where, during an interview, the employer’s remarks and the employee’s expression of intent to resign became intertwined. The Commission assessed the legal nature of the termination of the employment relationship by comprehensively examining the course of the conversation during the interview, whether the employee subsequently reported to work, and the contents of the employer’s messages. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether the employer’s repeated remarks during the interview to the effect of “I’d like to sort this out” constitute a definitive expression of intent to dismiss under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, or merely a proposal for voluntary resignation, and whether the employee’s subsequent response, “I’ll just leave right now,” can be regarded as resignation or mutual termination. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that, although the employer, in the course of discussing termination of the employment relationship during the interview, used expressions suggestive of redundancy or recommended resignation, the employer did not specify a concrete date of termination; the employee responded first by saying, “I’ll just leave right now,” and immediately left the workplace without providing labor on 26 March 2026; and, even after the employer sent messages encouraging the employee to return to work on the ground that there had been no unfair dismissal, the employee did not report to work. The panel therefore considered that this “dismissal” was not a unilateral termination of the employment contract by the employer, but rather a situation in which, in the course of proposing a recommended resignation, the employee expressed an intention to leave immediately, which could largely be evaluated as the employee’s own act. Taking into account also that, although the employee briefly visited the company on 30 March, the employee left without clearly confirming whether the employment relationship was still in effect, the Commission held that it was difficult to regard the employer’s remarks as a definitive expression of intent to dismiss, and that the employee had formalized the termination of the employment relationship by his or her own will. Accordingly, it was decided that no dismissal existed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For an employee to assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to secure specific circumstances proving that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship irrespective of the employee’s will, that is, that a dismissal actually occurred. If, in the course of an interview, the employee emotionally says, “Then I’ll just leave,” and immediately stops reporting to work, there is a high risk that this will be evaluated as resignation or mutual termination. Therefore, the employee should clearly confirm whether the situation constitutes dismissal or a proposal for recommended resignation, when the termination date will be, and so forth, and, if possible, organize these matters in writing or via messages. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when discussing termination of the employment relationship, repeatedly using ambiguous expressions such as “I’d like to sort this out” or “Wouldn’t it be better for you to quit?” can blur the line between resignation and dismissal and easily give rise to disputes. When proposing recommended resignation, it is important to clearly document in writing the expression of intent to resign, the termination date, and any conditions, and, even when an employee impulsively says “I’ll leave,” to go through procedures to reconfirm the genuineness of that intention and whether it will be withdrawn, in order to prevent disputes. This decision provides important guidance on the criteria for determining the “existence of dismissal,” which is central to unfair dismissal relief applications, particularly on how to distinguish resignation or mutual termination from dismissal in situations where the employer’s ambiguous remarks and the employee’s responses are intermingled. In actual cases, it should be kept in mind that the Labor Relations Commission’s and courts’ determinations may hinge on a meticulous organization of all circumstances, including the specific content of the remarks, whether the termination date was specified, and the subsequent course of attendance at work and message exchanges. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was decided that no dismissal existed, on the grounds that it was difficult to view the employer as having made a definitive expression of intent to dismiss the employee. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Although it is acknowledged that, during the interview on 26 March 2026, the employer first proposed termination of the employment relationship to the employee by repeatedly making remarks to the effect of “I’d like to sort this out,” the date from which the employment relationship would be terminated was not specified; the employee ultimately responded to the employer’s remarks by saying, “I’ll just leave right now,” and the employer said, “You mean you’re leaving today, right now?”, “You’re leaving?”, and “If you think this is the right way to go, then please act according to your own judgment,” thereby reconfirming the employee’s intention, yet the employee left the workplace on 26 March 2026 without providing labor; thereafter, the employer sent the employee messages to the effect that there had been no unfair dismissal and encouraging the employee to report to work, but the employee did not report to the company on 27 March 2026; and, although the employee visited the company at around 08:00 on 30 March 2026, the employee left without confirming with the employer whether the employment relationship had been terminated, and so on. In light of all of these circumstances, the employer’s remarks to the employee during the interview on 26 March 2026 are to be interpreted as made with the intention of proposing recommended resignation in the course of discussing whether the employment relationship should continue, and thus are difficult to regard as a definitive expression of intent to dismiss. Rather, it appears that the employee first expressed to the employer an intention to leave immediately, thereby effectively formalizing the termination of the employment relationship. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (leaving the workplace after work), 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Recognition of Disciplinary Grounds (False Report and Improper Benefit),” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions concerning expression of intent to resign (leaving the workplace after work) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Leaving the Workplace After Work).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article