[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “resignation·mutual termination (request for change of guardian).” Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2016 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-14 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: … the following were established: (i) …, (ii) although the guardian requested that the worker be replaced, the employer did not notify contract termination or refusal of regular employment, (iii) the worker stated “I think I should work only until today and then quit,” “I think we should clear up the misunderstanding and then I should quit.” 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a workplace presumed to be a daycare center or similar facility, where, following a conflict between the worker and a guardian, the employment relationship was terminated, raising the issue of whether the termination constituted unfair dismissal. The worker claimed that she had been unilaterally dismissed by the employer and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer and dismissed the worker’s application. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a guardian has requested that the worker be replaced and a conflict has arisen, and the worker has made statements suggesting resignation such as “I think I should work only until today and then quit,” the termination of the employment relationship constitutes the employer’s unfair dismissal, or the worker’s voluntary resignation or mutual termination by agreement. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that: (i) unlike expiration of the employment contract term or a redundancy dismissal, there was no confirmation that the employer had unilaterally notified termination of the employment contract; (ii) although the guardian requested that the worker be replaced, there was no indication that the employer explicitly notified contract termination or refusal of regular employment; (iii) the worker used expressions such as “I think I should work only until today and then quit,” “I think we should clear up the misunderstanding and then I should quit,” “Then I won’t do it. From today,” and “I’ll just wrap things up here. Just,” thereby either first expressing an intention to resign or, at a minimum, agreeing to the employer’s suggestion of resignation; and (iv) there was no objective evidence that the employer terminated the employment relationship by a unilateral declaration of intent. In light of the above, the Commission held that the employment relationship ended by the worker’s resignation or by mutual termination based on the concordant intentions of the employer and the worker, and that there was no unilateral disposition by the employer constituting “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) Workers should be aware that if they make emotional statements such as “I will only work until today and then quit” or “I’ll just wrap things up here,” the Labor Relations Commission may recognize these as an actual expression of intent to resign. If you seek a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is important to systematically secure evidence such as recorded conversations, text messages, and messenger logs that can prove whether your true intention was dismissal or resignation, and whether you were forced to resign. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, in situations involving a worker’s resignation or mutual termination, it is necessary not to rely solely on verbal conversations, but to clearly document the worker’s voluntary intent and the circumstances in writing, such as a letter of resignation or a written agreement. In addition, even if there is a request from a guardian or customer to replace a worker, rather than immediately treating this as grounds for dismissal, the employer should first consider other measures such as reassignment or warnings, and establish an HR and labor management system that clearly distinguishes resignation·mutual termination from dismissal, in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History … the following were established: (i) …, (ii) although the guardian requested that the worker be replaced, the employer did not notify contract termination or refusal of regular employment, (iii) it is reasonable to view that, through statements such as “I think I should work only until today and then quit,” “I think we should clear up the misunderstanding and then I should quit,” “Then I won’t do it. From today,” and “I’ll just wrap things up here. Just,” the worker first expressed an intention to resign or agreed to the employer’s suggestion of resignation, so that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, and (iv) there is no basis to view that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent. In comprehensive consideration of the above, the Commission found that there was no unfair dismissal. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings … the following were established: (i) …, (ii) although the guardian requested that the worker be replaced, the employer did not notify contract termination or refusal of regular employment, (iii) it is reasonable to view that, through statements such as “I think I should work only until today and then quit,” “I think we should clear up the misunderstanding and then I should quit,” “Then I won’t do it. From today,” and “I’ll just wrap things up here. Just,” the worker first expressed an intention to resign or agreed to the employer’s suggestion of resignation, so that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, and (iv) there is no basis to view that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent. In comprehensive consideration of the above, the Commission found that there was no unfair dismissal. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Employee Status·Regular Five or More Employees (Postpartum Care Helper)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Transfer (Resolution of Internal Organizational Conflict)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, resignation·mutual termination (request for change of guardian), 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 (Postpartum Care Helper)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to resignation·mutual termination (request for change of guardian) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Resignation·Mutual Termination (Request for Change of Guardian).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article