This case concerns a precedent in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (specifying the resignation date).” [Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (specifying the resignation date).” Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1864 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-31 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee expressed an intention to resign, specifying a particular point in time as the resignation date. The employee later changed their mind and wished to continue working, but the employer did not accept this and asserted that the employment relationship had ended, leading the employee to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. In reviewing whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted an unfair dismissal, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission regarded as the core issue whether the employment relationship had ended by dismissal, or instead by the employee’s resignation or termination by mutual agreement. Labor Law Firm Law& reviewed and analyzed the case in the course of this process. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where an employee has expressed an intention to resign while specifying a concrete resignation date, and the employer has proceeded with personnel measures such as new hiring on the premise of that resignation, the employee may later claim to withdraw that intention to resign, and whether, in such circumstances, the employer’s notification can be regarded as an unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that: the employee clearly expressed an intention to resign while specifying the resignation date; the employer can be regarded as having accepted that intention to resign by proceeding, on that basis, with a job posting and recruitment procedures for packaging room staff; after the employee later expressed a desire to continue working, the employer did not agree, making it difficult to view the resignation as having been validly withdrawn; and objective materials confirm that Mr. Lee ○○ was serving as chairperson at the time and that the employee had communicated an intention to resign to colleagues as well. In light of the above, the Commission determined that the employment relationship in this case was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign, and it is difficult to regard the termination as a unilateral dismissal by the employer. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that there is any remedial interest in an unfair dismissal claim. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be aware that once they express a clear intention to resign specifying the resignation date, whether orally or in writing, that expression of intent will be treated as very weighty, absent any particular defect (such as coercion or a declaration not reflecting true intent). Once the expression of intent to resign has reached the employer, if the employer has accepted it or has taken measures such as recruitment of replacement personnel on that premise, it will be difficult to withdraw that resignation unilaterally without the employer’s consent. Employees should keep this in mind. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when an employee expresses an intention to resign, it is important to keep a clear record of the content (resignation date, background, and voluntariness) and to manage matters so that it can be objectively proven that subsequent measures such as recruitment or personnel reallocation were taken on that premise. At the same time, employers should check in advance whether the expression of intent to resign was made under coercion or pressure, whether there is any room for it to be evaluated as not reflecting the employee’s true intent, and whether it is merely a formal “voluntary resignation” used to avoid a redundancy dismissal, in order to prevent future unfair dismissal disputes. In this type of case, both employees and employers must pay close attention to accurately understanding the legal nature of resignation, dismissal, and termination by mutual agreement, as well as the legal principles governing the timing and possibility of withdrawing an expression of intent to resign, and to organizing and proving the specific facts in line with those legal principles. To obtain a favorable outcome in Labor Relations Commission proceedings, it is advisable to consult from the initial stage with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to prepare the facts and evidence in a systematic manner. 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History ... (1) it appears to be a clear expression of intent to resign specifying the timing; (2) the employer, based on that expression of intent to resign, proceeded with a job posting and recruitment procedures for packaging room staff, and thus can be regarded as having accepted the employee’s intention to resign; (3) although the employee later expressed a desire to continue working, it is difficult to view the resignation as having been validly withdrawn in the absence of the employer’s consent; and (4) objective materials confirm that Mr. Lee ○○ was serving as chairperson at the time and that the employee had communicated an intention to resign to colleagues as well. In light of all these factors, it is difficult to find that the employment relationship in this case was terminated in a manner giving rise to any remedial interest. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision ... (1) it appears to be a clear expression of intent to resign specifying the timing; (2) the employer, based on that expression of intent to resign, proceeded with a job posting and recruitment procedures for packaging room staff, and thus can be regarded as having accepted the employee’s intention to resign; (3) although the employee later expressed a desire to continue working, it is difficult to view the resignation as having been validly withdrawn in the absence of the employer’s consent; and (4) objective materials confirm that Mr. Lee ○○ was serving as chairperson at the time and that the employee had communicated an intention to resign to colleagues as well. In light of all these factors, it is difficult to find that the employment relationship in this case was terminated in a manner giving rise to any remedial interest. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissed - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: - Case number: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (specified resignation date), voluntary resignation · expression of intent to resign, dispute over whether dismissal occurred, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Expression of Intent to Dismiss (On-Site Departure · Request for Reassignment)’,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (specified resignation date) at “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Specified Resignation Date).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article