[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision on the issues of “employee status and expression of intent to resign (Secretary-General).” Decision date: 2026-06-29 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae81 Key issue summary: A. Employee status under the Labor Standards Act The Secretary-General was an employee to whom Gwangsan-gu’s Office Management Regulations and Personnel Regulations applied, who performed duties under the employer’s direction and supervision, and who provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. Accordingly, he fell within the definition of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the applicant, who had been serving in the position of Secretary-General, filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. In Case 2026Buhae81, the Central Labor Relations Commission examined whether the applicant qualified as an employee and whether a dismissal existed. The Commission focused on two core questions: whether the applicant fell within the definition of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act, and whether the letter of resignation submitted at the employer’s request constituted a genuine expression of intent to resign. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where the Secretary-General qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, whether the circumstances surrounding the letter of resignation submitted at the employer’s request give rise to a ‘dismissal,’ or whether the employment relationship ended by the employee’s genuine expression of intent to resign.” Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case noted that the employer’s Office Management Regulations and Personnel Regulations applied without modification to the Secretary-General; that the Secretary-General performed duties under the employer’s direction and supervision in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages; and that, in light of the substantive nature of the labor-providing relationship, he fell within the definition of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. Although it was acknowledged that the Secretary-General submitted a letter of resignation at the employer’s request, there were no circumstances identified from which it could be inferred that this expression of intent to resign was not genuine due to duress, mistake, or other defect in intent. The expression of intent to resign took effect when it reached the employer on 9 July 2025, and the employment relationship appears to have terminated as of 31 July 2025. Accordingly, the employment relationship between the parties ended by the employee’s expression of intent to resign to the employer, and no dismissal existed. On this basis, the Commission held that, as the claim of unfair dismissal presupposed the existence of a dismissal, there was no need to further examine the legitimacy of any dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if one’s title or designation is that of a manager—such as Secretary-General or Team Leader—one should be aware that one may still qualify as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act if, in practice, one is subject to the employer’s personnel and service regulations, performs work under the employer’s specific direction and supervision, and provides labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. In addition, where a letter of resignation is submitted at the employer’s request, once the expression of intent to resign reaches the employer, it will, absent special circumstances, be regarded as a genuine resignation. Therefore, if you seek a remedy for unfair dismissal, you should carefully consider the situation before submitting a letter of resignation and, if possible, consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, one cannot simply conclude that a person is not an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act merely because his or her title is that of an executive or manager. Employee status is determined based on the actual relationship of subordination in the workplace (direction and supervision over work, application of personnel regulations, designation of working hours and place of work, method of wage payment, etc.). Furthermore, where personnel issues are handled in the form of a resignation letter instead of a redundancy or disciplinary dismissal, the genuineness of the resignation may later be disputed. It is therefore advisable to keep objective records of the circumstances leading to the resignation, the content of interviews, and the contents of the resignation letter, and to avoid any methods that may be misunderstood as coercive or unduly pressuring the employee. To prevail in this type of case, it is important to have a prior understanding of the legal principles governing the determination of employee status and the legal nature of expressions of intent to resign, and to respond together with an expert who has the experience and capability to systematically organize and prove the facts in line with those legal principles. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was decided that the individual in question qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and that the employment relationship between the parties had ended by the employee’s expression of intent to resign to the employer, so that no dismissal existed. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision A. Employee Status under the Labor Standards Act The Secretary-General was an employee to whom Gwangsan-gu’s Office Management Regulations and Personnel Regulations applied, who performed duties under the employer’s direction and supervision, and who provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. Accordingly, he fell within the definition of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. B. Existence of a Dismissal Although it is acknowledged that the employee submitted a letter of resignation at the employer’s request, no circumstances were identified from which the employee’s expression of intent to resign could be inferred to be invalid, and thus it is difficult to find any defect in that expression of intent. The employee’s expression of intent to resign is deemed to have taken effect when it reached the employer in this case on 9 July 2025, and, accordingly, the employment relationship between the parties ended on 31 July 2025 by the employee’s expression of intent to resign to the employer, so that no dismissal exists. Therefore, there is no need to further examine the legitimacy of any dismissal premised on the existence of a dismissal in this case. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interest in Relief and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employee)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, Employee status and expression of intent to resign (Secretary-General), 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 Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Extension of Childcare Leave)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to employee status and expression of intent to resign (Secretary-General) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status and Expression of Intent to Resign (Secretary-General).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article