[Case Information] This case is a decision concerning the issue of “voluntary resignation (handwritten resignation letter)” that concluded with the reversal of the first-instance decision. Decision date: 2026-06-29 · Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae18 Key issue summary: Submission of a resignation letter by a worker is generally interpreted as termination of the employment contract (or an offer to terminate by mutual agreement) addressed to the employer. Whether a voluntary resignation constitutes a dismissal is determined comprehensively by examining the circumstances under which the resignation letter was submitted, the method, intensity, and frequency of the employer’s inducement, the disadvantages anticipated if the worker does not resign, and the parties’ conduct before and after the resignation. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker submitted a resignation letter and was processed as having voluntarily resigned, after which the worker filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Central Labor Relations Commission examined whether the termination was a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent by comprehensively reviewing the circumstances of the resignation letter’s submission, the interview process, and the degree of the employer’s inducement. It ultimately held that it was difficult to recognize unfair dismissal in this case. The key issue in this case is whether “a voluntary resignation based on a handwritten resignation letter in which the worker personally specified the date of resignation can be regarded as an unfair dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent.” Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case was whether the voluntary resignation processed on the basis of the worker’s resignation letter was, in substance, a dismissal coerced by the employer to evade statutory restrictions on dismissal, despite being in the form of a resignation, or whether it was a termination of the employment contract based on the worker’s genuine intention to resign. In particular, the core dispute was whether this constituted a “forced resignation based on an expression of intent not reflecting the worker’s true will,” assessed by reference to the circumstances surrounding the submission of the resignation letter, the method and intensity of the employer’s inducement to resign, the disadvantages anticipated if the worker did not resign, and the parties’ conduct before and after the resignation. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case noted that the worker personally requested a resignation form, filled it out specifying the date of resignation, and signed and sealed it before submitting it; that there was testimony indicating the interview was conducted at an ordinary level and that there was a lack of objective evidence supporting allegations of coercion or threats to the contrary; and that there was insufficient proof of circumstances showing that, at the time of or immediately after submitting the resignation letter, the employer deprived the worker of any real choice through abusive language, threats, or advance notice of disadvantages. In light of these factors, the Commission held that the worker’s submission of the resignation letter constituted a typical termination of the employment contract (or an offer to terminate by mutual agreement), and that it was difficult to regard the acceptance of this resignation as a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) Where a worker submits a handwritten resignation letter specifying the date of resignation and bearing the worker’s signature and seal, subsequently retracting that resignation and asserting unfair dismissal will require concrete and objective proof that the worker’s freedom of decision-making was impaired by coercion, threats, or serious deceit. If no record is kept of the circumstances of coercion—such as recordings of the interview, text or messenger messages, emails, or statements from colleagues—the Labor Relations Commission is likely to treat the resignation as an ordinary expression of intent to resign, making relief for unfair dismissal difficult to obtain. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective) From the company’s standpoint, resignation and dismissal should be strictly distinguished. In the case of resignation, it is advisable that the worker personally request the form, complete it in their own handwriting, and sign it, and that the interview process avoid coercive language and be documented. In particular, where, for managerial reasons or in the course of personnel restructuring, the company effectively carries out a redundancy while strongly pressuring workers to submit resignation letters, the arrangement may be evaluated as a de facto dismissal despite being in the form of voluntary resignation. This increases the risk of an unfair dismissal finding and liability for damages. Accordingly, employers should clearly distinguish whether they will satisfy the legal requirements for redundancy dismissal or instead establish a structure of genuinely voluntary resignation when formulating their HR and labor-relations strategy. In this regard, workplaces and workers who anticipate similar disputes are advised to review in advance the boundary between resignation/voluntary resignation and dismissal by consulting experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History Difficult to regard the termination as a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Submission of a resignation letter by a worker is generally interpreted as termination of the employment contract (or an offer to terminate by mutual agreement) addressed to the employer. Whether a voluntary resignation constitutes a dismissal is determined comprehensively by examining the circumstances under which the resignation letter was submitted, the method, intensity, and frequency of the employer’s inducement, the disadvantages anticipated if the worker does not resign, and the parties’ conduct before and after the resignation. In this case, the worker personally requested a resignation form, was made to fill it out specifying the date of resignation, and then signed, sealed, and submitted it; there is testimony that the interview was conducted at an ordinary level (although the parties’ accounts of the interview differ, there is a lack of objective evidence supporting either version); and there is an insufficient basis to find that, at the time of or immediately after the submission of the resignation letter, the employer deprived the worker of any real choice through abusive language, threats, or advance notice of disadvantages. Therefore, it is difficult to regard this as a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Remedial Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, voluntary resignation (handwritten resignation letter), 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. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Departure from Workplace After Work)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to voluntary resignation (handwritten resignation letter) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Voluntary Resignation (Handwritten Resignation Letter).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article