[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “resignation·mutual termination (request by guardian to replace caregiver).” Decision date: 2026-08-14 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae2016 Key issue summary: (i) At the time of entering into the employment contract, a three‑month probationary period was set, and the end date of the contract period was defined as the time when the caregiving assignment was completed due to a request for replacement by the care recipient or guardian; (ii) although the guardian requested that the worker be replaced, the employer did not notify the worker of contract termination or refusal of regular employment; (iii) the worker stated, “I think I should work only until today and then quit,” “I think I should clear up the misunderstanding and then quit.” 1. Legal Implications This article examines how the Labor Relations Commission distinguishes among resignation, mutual termination, and dismissal, through a Commission case where the key issue was whether there had been an unfair dismissal. Alongside the Commission’s reasoning, we organize practical points from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law& to help those considering filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal and to prevent similar disputes. Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a situation where the guardian of a care recipient to whom the worker had been dispatched/assigned requested that the worker be replaced, raising the question of whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted unfair dismissal, or instead the worker’s voluntary resignation or mutual termination. In the unfair dismissal remedy case (2026Buhae2016), the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission assessed the legal nature of the termination of the employment relationship by comprehensively considering the structure of the fixed‑term employment contract including a probationary period and the parties’ oral expressions of intent. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is how to evaluate the worker’s repeated statements that she would “quit” in a situation where the care recipient and guardian requested a replacement—specifically, whether the termination should be viewed as an unfair dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent, or as an expression of intent to resign by the worker, or as a mutual termination based on acceptance of the worker’s proposal to resign. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that: at the time of entering into the employment contract, the employer set a three‑month probationary period and defined the end date of the contract period as the time when the caregiving assignment was completed due to a request for replacement by the care recipient or guardian; despite the guardian’s request for replacement, there was no evidence that the employer expressly notified the worker of contract termination or refusal of regular employment; and the worker used specific expressions such as “I think I should work only until today and then quit,” “I think I should clear up the misunderstanding and then quit,” “Then I won’t do it. From today,” and “I’ll just wrap things up here. Just,” indicating that she first expressed an intention to resign or appeared to agree to the employer’s suggestion of resignation. In light of this, the worker’s oral expression of intent to resign can be evaluated as a notice of termination (unilateral resignation) as referred to in Article 660 of the Civil Act, or as an offer to mutually terminate the employment contract. Once the employer accepted this, or after a certain period of time had passed, the employment relationship should be deemed to have ended. Considering also that there is no objective evidence that the employer terminated the employment relationship by a unilateral expression of intent, the Commission held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case and, therefore, the worker’s claim of unfair dismissal by the employer could not be accepted. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) Workers should be aware that simply saying orally, “I will quit,” or “I won’t work from today,” may be recognized as an expression of intent to resign or to mutually terminate the contract, making it difficult to assert unfair dismissal. Even if such words are spoken in a heated emotional situation, once an expression of intent to resign is communicated to the employer, it can, in principle, be evaluated as a notice of termination or an offer of mutual termination. Accordingly, if you do not actually intend to leave the company, you should avoid mentioning resignation at all. If you have already expressed an intention to resign, it is necessary to organize the facts in detail and seek advice, including whether your intention was confirmed by the employer’s acceptance, whether it was merely an emotional outburst, and whether you were pressured to resign (whether there was coercion or inducement). In sectors such as caregiving and support services, where the demands of users or guardians directly affect employment, you should pay particular attention in advance to the contract term, probationary provisions, and procedures to be followed in the event of a replacement request. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when a worker orally expresses an intention to resign, it is helpful for preventing disputes to record as objectively as possible the circumstances and specific wording of the statement, and to put in place procedures to reconfirm the worker’s intention to resign via text message, messenger, or written confirmation. However, if the worker in substance has no intention to resign but mentions resignation or is made to write a resignation letter under a coercive atmosphere, then, even if it is formally a voluntary resignation, it may be substantively evaluated as a dismissal. To avoid the risk of an unfair dismissal finding, employers should refrain from conduct or remarks that could be misunderstood as pressuring or coercing resignation. In addition, if the structure is such that the employment relationship automatically terminates solely upon a request by the care recipient or guardian for replacement, disputes are likely to arise frequently regarding who is the actor and what is the method of termination. Therefore, employers should clearly stipulate in the employment contract the procedures for reassignment, standby, training, etc., and how the contract period will be handled in the event of a replacement request. To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing resignation, mutual termination, and dismissal, and to establish a personnel and labor management system that can concretely prove the legally relevant facts, such as the content of conversations that actually took place on site and how notifications were given. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that there was no dismissal, on the ground that there was no basis to find that the employer had made a unilateral expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (i) At the time of entering into the employment contract, a three‑month probationary period was set, and the end date of the contract period was defined as the time when the caregiving assignment was completed due to a request for replacement by the care recipient or guardian; (ii) although the guardian requested that the worker be replaced, there is no evidence that the employer notified the worker of contract termination or refusal of regular employment; (iii) in light of the worker’s statements such as “I think I should work only until today and then quit,” “I think I should clear up the misunderstanding and then quit,” “Then I won’t do it. From today,” and “I’ll just wrap things up here. Just,” it is reasonable to view that the worker first expressed an intention to resign or agreed to the employer’s suggestion of resignation, and thus the employment relationship was mutually terminated; and (iv) there is no basis to find that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent. Taking all of this into account, the Commission found that there was no dismissal. [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Remedial Interest·Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employee)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expectation of Succession of Employment (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)”’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, resignation·mutual termination (request by guardian to replace caregiver), probationary dismissal, 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 “Employee Status·Regular Five or More Employees (Postnatal Care Helper)”’, in a new window. ※ You can view the list of decisions related to resignation·mutual termination (request by guardian to replace caregiver) at “List of Decisions on Resignation·Mutual Termination (Request by Guardian to Replace Caregiver).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article