This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (leaving the workplace after work).” [Case Information] This case concerns a decision where, on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (leaving the workplace after work),” the employer prevailed and the application was dismissed. Adjudicating body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae528 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-29 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issue: ... “I will leave.” 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee, during a meeting with the employer, effectively stated “I will leave” and immediately left the workplace. The employee later claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The Commission focused on whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship was dismissal or the employee’s voluntary resignation, by comprehensively examining the course of the conversation, whether the employee reported to work thereafter, and the content of the employer’s messages. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employee said “I will leave” during a meeting and immediately stopped providing labor, the cause of termination of the employment relationship was the employer’s unfair dismissal, or the employee’s expression of intent to resign or de facto resignation. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The adjudicating panel in this case found that there had been a voluntary resignation or expression of intent to resign by the employee, based on the following: during the meeting, the employer repeatedly reconfirmed the employee’s intent by asking, “You mean you are leaving today, right now?”, “You are leaving?”, and “If you think this is the right way to go, then please act according to your own judgment,” and the employee responded accordingly; the employee immediately stopped providing labor that day and left the workplace; even though the employer subsequently sent a message to the effect that “there has been no unfair dismissal, so please come to work,” the employee did not report to work the next day; and, further, although the employee briefly visited the company a few days later, the employee left without clearly confirming with the employer whether the employment relationship was still in effect. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that it was difficult to view the situation as one where the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship by dismissal, and that there was insufficient evidence to accept the employee’s allegation that unfair dismissal had occurred. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be aware that if, in a heightened emotional state, they use expressions such as “I will leave” or “I will quit” and immediately stop providing labor, there is a very high risk that this will be evaluated as an expression of intent to resign. If you wish to retract or clarify the true intent behind such a statement, you should clearly confirm in writing (text message, email, etc.) whether the situation is being treated as a dismissal or as a resignation, and, if you intend to contest a dismissal, you should clearly express your intention to report to work and to continue providing labor. In addition, because an application for remedy for unfair dismissal presupposes a “unilateral dismissal by the employer,” you should minimize words and actions that may make it appear that you left the company of your own accord (such as immediately leaving the workplace, refusing to report to work thereafter), and exercise particular caution with respect to signing any documents such as a resignation letter or settlement agreement. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, even if an employee mentions resignation in an agitated state, it is important to sufficiently confirm whether that intent constitutes a genuine resignation, and, where possible, to leave written evidence of “reconfirmation of intent to resign” (resignation letter, confirmation letter, text message, etc.) as a means of preventing disputes. In particular, once the employee has left the workplace, clearly leaving a record of communication to the effect that “this is not a dismissal, and you are required to report to work” can serve as an important defense material in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute. However, as case law generally places the burden of proof on the employer as to whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship was resignation or dismissal, employers should systematically preserve and manage objective materials such as recordings of meetings, text messages, and attendance records. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History ... The employee responded, “I will leave,” and the employer, by saying “You mean you are leaving today, right now?”, “You are leaving?”, and “If you think this is the right way to go, then please act according to your own judgment,” repeatedly reconfirmed the employee’s intent, yet on 26 March 2026 the employee did not provide labor and left the workplace; after that, although the employer sent the employee a message to the effect of recommending that the employee report to work because there had been no unfair dismissal, 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. Taking all of these circumstances together, ... 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision ... The employee responded, “I will leave,” and the employer, by saying “You mean you are leaving today, right now?”, “You are leaving?”, and “If you think this is the right way to go, then please act according to your own judgment,” repeatedly reconfirmed the employee’s intent, yet on 26 March 2026 the employee did not provide labor and left the workplace; after that, although the employer sent the employee a message to the effect of recommending that the employee report to work because there had been no unfair dismissal, 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. Taking all of these circumstances together, ... / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissed - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: - Case number: Initial Decision Upheld [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&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Recognition of Disciplinary Grounds (False Report·Unjust Enrichment)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (leaving the workplace after work) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Leaving the Workplace After Work).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article