[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of an “expression of intent to resign (conditional notice by text message).” Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae522 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-26 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerns a situation where an employee, in order to prevent the dismissal of other employees, expressed a conditional intent to resign, after which the employer sent a text message stating, “We will take it that you are leaving. Thank you for all your hard work while you were with us.” The employee then stopped coming to work without raising any particular objection. The matter was contested before the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission as an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, after the employee expressed a conditional intent to resign (“If you do not dismiss the other employees, I will resign”), and in light of the employer’s text message and the circumstances surrounding the employee’s failure to report to work, the termination of the employment relationship constitutes an unfair dismissal, or whether it should be regarded as a resignation by the employee or a termination by mutual agreement. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that: the employer, in the capacity of de facto manager, clearly stated that the condition attached to the employee’s intent to resign could not be accepted; thereafter notified the employee of the intention to terminate the employment relationship by sending a text message stating, “We will take it that you are leaving”; the employee did not raise any objection and did not report to work from the following day; and, considering the entire course of communications between the parties, the employee had expressed an intent to resign of his/her own accord, and the employer accepted this, so that the employment relationship was terminated by way of mutual agreement. Accordingly, it was held that there was no unilateral dismissal by the employer against the employee’s will—i.e., no dismissal measure constituting an unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act—and the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) When an employee expresses an intent to resign, whether orally or by text, it must be borne in mind that the content may later be interpreted as the basis for termination of the employment relationship. In particular, even in the case of a conditional resignation (e.g., “If you don’t fire the others, I will leave”), if the employer expresses that the condition will not be accepted and the employee, without objection, stops reporting to work, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may evaluate the situation as a voluntary resignation or termination by mutual agreement. Therefore, rather than mentioning resignation in the heat of the moment, in situations where the issue of unfair dismissal may arise, it is advisable to refrain as much as possible from expressing an intent to resign and, if necessary, to consult first with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when an employee mentions resignation or conditional resignation, it is important to clearly confirm that intent and preserve it in objective form, such as by text message or email. In addition, after the employee expresses an intent to resign, the employer should carefully monitor whether the employee actually stops reporting to work, whether the employee raises any objection, or expresses an intention to withdraw the resignation, so that it can be demonstrated before the Labor Relations Commission that the case involves a resignation or termination by mutual agreement, rather than an unfair dismissal. To prevent disputes over “coerced resignation” in the course of layoffs or restructuring, employers should establish in advance procedures that ensure the authenticity of the circumstances under which resignation letters are prepared and the genuineness of the employee’s expression of intent. In this type of case, both employees and employers must have an accurate understanding of the legal distinctions between resignation/termination by mutual agreement and dismissal, as well as the legal principles regarding the manner of expressing intent to resign and the timing at which such intent may be withdrawn. Where a dispute is anticipated, it is advisable to seek early assistance from experts familiar with Labor Relations Commission practice and case law, such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History ... The employer sent a text message stating, “We will take it that you are leaving. Thank you for all your hard work while you were with us,” thereby notifying the employee of the intention to terminate the employment relationship, and the employee, without providing any response or raising any objection, did not report to work from the following day. Considering these circumstances and the entirety of the expressions of intent exchanged between the parties, the employee first expressed to the de facto manager a specific conditional intent to resign—namely, an expression of intent that he/she would resign if the other employees were not dismissed—and it is deemed that the de facto manager, stating that such condition could not be accepted, accepted the expression of intent to resign, so that no dismissal measure exists. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning ... The employer sent a text message stating, “We will take it that you are leaving. Thank you for all your hard work while you were with us,” thereby notifying the employee of the intention to terminate the employment relationship, and the employee, without providing any response or raising any objection, did not report to work from the following day. Considering these circumstances and the entirety of the expressions of intent exchanged between the parties, the employee first expressed to the de facto manager a specific conditional intent to resign—namely, an expression of intent that he/she would resign if the other employees were not dismissed—and it is deemed that the de facto manager, stating that such condition could not be accepted, accepted the expression of intent to resign, so that no dismissal measure exists. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: - Case number: Original decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: - Case number: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (conditional notice by text message), 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 ‘Dismissal During Probation (Grade D in Probationary Evaluation)’,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (conditional notice by text message) at “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Conditional Notice by Text Message).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article