[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (with a specified final working date).” Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1864 Key issue summary: ① The employee expressed to Mr. Lee ○○ that in 2026… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, while working in the packaging room, the employee told the chairperson that she would work until the end of February 2026 and then submit a letter of resignation. Later, she expressed her intention to continue working, but the employer did not accept this, leading to a dispute over alleged unfair dismissal. The employee filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the employer’s arguments, as represented by Labor Law Firm Law&, together with the relevant legal principles, to determine the nature of the termination of the employment relationship. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is: “Where an employee verbally expresses an intent to resign, specifying a particular point in time, and the employer, relying on that intent, proceeds with new recruitment, whether an unfair dismissal can still be found to exist despite the employee’s subsequent retraction of the resignation.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case noted that the employee stated, “I will work until the end of February 2026 and then submit a letter of resignation,” meaning there was a clear expression of intent to resign specifying the retirement date; that the employer, relying on this, posted a recruitment notice for packaging room staff and proceeded with hiring procedures, which can be viewed as acceptance of the resignation; that although the employee later expressed her intention to continue working, it is difficult to regard the resignation as having been validly withdrawn because the employer did not consent; and that, according to objective materials, Mr. Lee ○○ was serving as chairperson at the time and it was confirmed that the employee had also expressed her intention to resign to her colleagues. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the employment relationship in this case was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign. Accordingly, the employer’s act of notifying the employee of the termination of the employment contract was merely a confirmation and communication of the legal effect of the resignation that had already occurred, and did not constitute a “dismissal” within the meaning of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the Commission found that there was no dismissal that could be the subject of an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be aware that if they clearly express an intention to resign, even verbally, and the employer, relying on that intention, takes personnel measures such as hiring a replacement, it will be difficult to unilaterally withdraw that resignation without the employer’s consent, even if they later change their mind. Unlike dismissal, an expression of intent to resign is a legal act by which the employee herself terminates the employment contract. Before mentioning resignation in the heat of the moment, it is therefore necessary to think carefully, and if you wish to leave room for retraction, you should clearly indicate that intention (for example, whether you are merely voicing grievances or tendering a conditional resignation). Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, the burden of proving that the employee expressed an intention to resign lies with the employer. Even if it is difficult to obtain a written resignation, it is important to leave records—by memo, text message, email, etc.—of the content, timing, and participants in any verbal expression of intent to resign. In addition, if the employer takes concrete follow-up measures based on the employee’s resignation, such as new recruitment or handover of duties, this will, in practice, increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the existence of the resignation and the resulting termination of the employment relationship. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that the employment relationship had been terminated by the employee’s intention to resign, and therefore no dismissal existed. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings ① The employee expressed to Mr. Lee ○○ her intention to work until the end of February 2026 and then submit a letter of resignation, which appears to be a clear expression of intent to resign specifying the retirement date; ② the employer, based on this expression of intent to resign, posted a recruitment notice for packaging room staff and proceeded with hiring procedures, which can be viewed as acceptance of the employee’s resignation; ③ although the employee later expressed her intention to continue working, it is difficult to regard the resignation as having been validly withdrawn because the employer did not consent; and ④ according to objective materials, Mr. Lee ○○ was serving as chairperson at the time, and it was confirmed that the employee had also expressed her intention to resign to her colleagues. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission concluded that the employment relationship in this case was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign, and it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed. [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (specified final working date), 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, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Existence of Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Leaving the Site and Request for Reassignment)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to expression of intent to resign (specified final working date) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Specified Final Working Date).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article