This case on the issue of “resignation not reflecting true intent (provision of resignation form)” ended with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application). Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026 Unfair Dismissal Case No. 725 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-08-11 · Outcome: Application dismissed Summary of Key Issue: The employer provided the employee with a resignation form on 13 February 2026. After reviewing the contents of the form, the employee agreed to resign one month later, personally signed the form, and delivered it to the employer. The employee then raised no objection whatsoever with the employer up to the resignation date of 12 March 2026. In light of this, it was held that the employee, judging that resignation was the best option under the circumstances at the time, expressed an intention to resign to the employer, and that this could not be regarded as a resignation not reflecting the employee’s true intent… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employment relationship was terminated on the basis of a resignation letter that the employee personally prepared and submitted. The employee subsequently claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, but the application was dismissed by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. The core issues before the Commission were whether the employee’s expression of intent to resign was a declaration not reflecting true intent, and whether the case could instead be viewed as a dismissal by the employer. The decision applied the legal principles on “distinguishing between unfair dismissal and resignation,” which Labor Law Firm Law& frequently addresses in similar cases. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case was: “Where the employer has provided a resignation form, and the employee completes and submits the resignation letter and then works until the resignation date without raising any particular objection, can this be viewed as an unfair dismissal by the employer, or should it be regarded as a genuine resignation by the employee?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that the employer provided the employee with a resignation form on 13 February 2026, and that, after confirming its contents, the employee personally signed and submitted the form, agreeing to resign one month later. Thereafter, the employee did not withdraw the resignation or raise any objection whatsoever with the employer up to the actual resignation date of 12 March 2026. In addition, no objective circumstances were revealed to indicate that the resignation letter had been written against the employee’s true intent due to coercion, threats, or similar pressure during the resignation process as a whole. Accordingly, the Commission held that it was reasonable to view the employee as having, under the circumstances at the time, judged resignation to be the best option and voluntarily expressed an intention to resign. The Commission therefore found that no dismissal disposition existed in the first place, and that the termination of the employment relationship was not an unfair dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent, but a retirement resulting from the employee’s voluntary resignation. On this basis, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be aware that where they personally prepare, sign, and submit a resignation letter and then continue working until the resignation date without raising any particular objection, the Labor Relations Commission is highly likely to recognize this as a “genuine resignation.” If an employee feels that resignation is being forced, they should postpone submitting a resignation letter as much as possible. If it has already been submitted, it is necessary to express withdrawal of the intention to resign at the earliest possible time, in a form that leaves evidence, such as in writing or by email. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) In the process of providing and receiving resignation letters, the company should give employees sufficient time for reflection, refrain from any statements implying coercion, threats, or disadvantage, and keep written records or memos of the process of confirming the employee’s intention to resign (interview details, circumstances leading to resignation, etc.). In particular, if, as a means of avoiding collective redundancies, the company in effect pressures employees who are de facto targets of dismissal to resign, the Labor Relations Commission may later assess this as an “unfair dismissal in the form of voluntary resignation.” Accordingly, employers should clearly distinguish between voluntary resignation and dismissal in their HR and labor management. 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History The employer provided the employee with a resignation form on 13 February 2026. After confirming the contents of the form, the employee agreed to resign one month later, personally signed the form, and delivered it to the employer. Considering that the employee then raised no objection whatsoever with the employer up to the resignation date of 12 March 2026, it appears that the employee, judging that resignation was the best option under the circumstances at the time, expressed an intention to resign to the employer. As there are no circumstances that would justify treating this as a declaration not reflecting true intent, it is determined that no dismissal exists. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employer provided the employee with a resignation form on 13 February 2026. After confirming the contents of the form, the employee agreed to resign one month later, personally signed the form, and delivered it to the employer. Considering that the employee then raised no objection whatsoever with the employer up to the resignation date of 12 March 2026, it appears that the employee, judging that resignation was the best option under the circumstances at the time, expressed an intention to resign to the employer. As there are no circumstances that would justify treating this as a declaration not reflecting true intent, it is determined that no dismissal exists. / [Further Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation by Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Lack of Business Necessity (Suspension from Duty Following Refusal of 30% Salary Reduction)” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: Original decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, resignation not reflecting true intent (provision of resignation form), 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. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Lack of Business Necessity (Suspension from Duty Following Refusal of 30% Salary Reduction),” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to resignation not reflecting true intent (provision of resignation form) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Resignation Not Reflecting True Intent (Provision of Resignation Form).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article