[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “whether a dismissal exists (voluntary resignation letter after suspension).” Decision-making body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae359 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-13 · Result: Initial decision upheld Summary of key issue: The employee received a three‑month suspension and, in order to move to another company, in 2025… 1. Legal Implications This re‑examination case on a remedy for unfair dismissal illustrates how the Labor Relations Commission evaluates an employee’s submission of a resignation letter and a mutual termination agreement with the employer, and it shows a dispute structure that differs from the redundancy/dismissal for cause cases frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&. The core issue was whether a remedy for unfair dismissal is available even where, in a situation where a suspension is scheduled, the employee submits a resignation letter in order to move to another company. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee received a three‑month disciplinary suspension from the employer and, thereafter, in order to move to another company, is found to have voluntarily drafted and submitted a resignation letter to the company around 17 September 2025. At the employee’s request, the company and the employee agreed to set the date of termination of the employment relationship as 12 September 2025, i.e., before the three‑month suspension took effect. Subsequently, the employee claimed that he/she had in substance been dismissed and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the dispute continued from the initial Labor Relations Commission to the re‑examination before the Central Labor Relations Commission. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case was whether, “where, in a situation where a three‑month suspension is scheduled, the employee submits a resignation letter in order to move to another company and the employer and employee agree to move the termination date of the employment relationship forward to a date prior to the effective date of the disciplinary measure, it can nevertheless be viewed that there exists an unfair dismissal by the employer, and whether any remedial interest remains with respect to the suspension.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employee drafted and submitted the resignation letter of his/her own free will in order to move to another company; that, at the employee’s request, the employer and employee mutually agreed to bring forward the termination date of the employment relationship to the day before the suspension took effect; and that there was no indication that the employer had expressed any unilateral intention to terminate the employment relationship. In light of the above, the panel held that the termination of the employment relationship in question did not constitute a unilateral dismissal by the employer, but rather a mutual termination based on the employee’s resignation and the employer’s acceptance thereof. It further held that, because the employment relationship had already ended before the three‑month suspension took effect, even if there were any illegality in the suspension, the employee no longer had any remedial interest in challenging it, and therefore dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be aware that, where they themselves submit a resignation letter and, on that basis, agree with the employer on the date of termination of the employment relationship, it will be very difficult, absent special circumstances, to later claim that the termination was a dismissal. If an employee wishes to argue that his/her intention to resign was not genuine, or that the employer coerced or pressured him/her into resigning, it is important to secure in advance specific circumstances and evidence (recordings, text messages, messenger logs, etc.). In addition, if, in a situation where disciplinary measures such as suspension or pay reduction are anticipated, the employee emotionally submits a resignation letter first, the door to the Labor Relations Commission remedy procedure may be closed on the ground that “the employment relationship has already ended and there is no remedial interest,” regardless of whether the disciplinary action was justified. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) When an employee submits a resignation letter, it is advisable for the company to clearly record the timing, background, and reasons, and to have procedures in place to confirm that the contents of the resignation letter are consistent with the oral explanation. If the company fails to check whether the intention to resign is genuine and whether there were any circumstances in which the personnel authority improperly induced or pressured the employee to resign, there is a risk that the resignation may later be misconstrued as a de facto dismissal disguised as a voluntary resignation. Furthermore, where disciplinary measures are anticipated and the employee requests to resign for reasons of changing jobs, the company should clearly agree with the employee on how to set the effective date of the disciplinary measure and the termination date of the employment relationship, and keep a written record of that agreement. Such records can serve as important defensive evidence in future unfair dismissal disputes. This decision is of practical significance in that it reaffirms the general legal principle that the Labor Relations Commission, in principle, regards an employee’s submission of a resignation letter as a “retirement (mutual termination) based on the employee’s intention” and does not view it as a dismissal unless exceptional circumstances such as coercion or a declaration of intent not reflecting the employee’s true intention are proven. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History The employee received a three‑month suspension and, in order to move to another company, voluntarily drafted and submitted a resignation letter to the company around 17 September 2025. At the employee’s request, the employer and employee appear to have mutually agreed to set the date of termination of the employment relationship as 12 September 2025, prior to the effective date of the three‑month suspension. In light of this and the fact that the employer did not express any unilateral intention to terminate the employment relationship with the employee, it is found that no dismissal exists, and that, because the employment relationship had already ended before the three‑month suspension took effect, there is no remedial interest with respect to the suspension. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employee received a three‑month suspension and, in order to move to another company, voluntarily drafted and submitted a resignation letter to the company around 17 September 2025. At the employee’s request, the employer and employee appear to have mutually agreed to set the date of termination of the employment relationship as 12 September 2025, prior to the effective date of the three‑month suspension. In light of this and the fact that the employer did not express any unilateral intention to terminate the employment relationship with the employee, it is found that no dismissal exists, and that, because the employment relationship had already ended before the three‑month suspension took effect, there is no remedial interest with respect to the suspension. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Case on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Case on Non‑Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Result: Initial decision upheld - “Case on Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, whether a dismissal exists (voluntary resignation letter after suspension), disciplinary dismissal, others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, labor law firm in Samseong‑dong, labor law firm near Samseong Station, labor law firm in Gangnam ※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Resignation/Mutual Termination (Request to Change Guardian)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision, in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to whether a dismissal exists (voluntary resignation letter after suspension) at the “List of Decisions on Whether a Dismissal Exists (Voluntary Resignation Letter After Suspension).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article