[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (misunderstanding of the store manager’s remarks).” Date of Decision: 2026-07-31 · Committee: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae742 Key Issue Summary: There was no evidence to show that the employer had delegated the authority to appoint and dismiss employees to the store manager in this case, and the employee himself, immediately after the store manager’s remarks, called the employer’s spouse several times to confirm whether the store manager’s remarks reflected the employer’s intention. This shows that the employee also recognized that the store manager was not the final decision-maker in personnel matters. 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case was handled by the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The employee claimed that he had been notified of dismissal by the store manager and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, while the employer denied this, giving rise to a dispute. This is a type of case frequently consulted on at Labor Law Firm Law&, where the core issues are whether personnel authority was delegated and whether a dismissal existed at all. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that he had received a notice of dismissal from the store manager to whom the employer had delegated personnel authority, and that this constituted unfair dismissal. The employer, however, argued that no personnel authority had been delegated to the store manager, that no dismissal had been effected, and that the employee had voluntarily resigned. During the Labor Relations Commission’s hearing, it was revealed that immediately after the store manager’s remarks, the employee called the employer’s spouse several times to confirm whether the store manager’s remarks were in line with the employer’s intention, and that the employer’s spouse instead requested that the employee continue working. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: “Whether the employer’s intention to dismiss can be deemed to exist based solely on the oral remarks of a store manager or other on-site manager, and whether the employee’s statement ‘I will only work until today’ and subsequent failure to report to work constitute voluntary resignation.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that there were no objective materials—such as a power of attorney, personnel regulations, or established practice—showing that the employer had delegated the authority to appoint and dismiss employees to the store manager. It also found that the employee himself, immediately after the store manager’s remarks, called the employer’s spouse several times in an attempt to confirm whether the store manager was the final decision-maker in personnel matters, and that the employer’s spouse did not acknowledge or approve any dismissal but instead requested that the employee continue working. Nevertheless, the employee expressed an intention to resign to the effect that “I will only work until today,” did not retract this, and then failed to report to work thereafter. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that neither the employer nor the employer’s spouse had dismissed the employee, and that there was no other evidence to recognize a dismissal, and therefore dismissed the employee’s application for relief from unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Under the Labor Standards Act, dismissal refers to a unilateral act by the employer terminating the employment contract. Accordingly, you must clearly identify who actually holds personnel authority and whether there has been a clear notice of dismissal from that person. If you immediately stop reporting to work based solely on harsh reprimands or emotionally charged remarks such as “then quit” from a store manager, team leader, or other middle manager, there is a high risk that your departure will be evaluated as resignation or voluntary termination. In addition, if you have made emotional statements such as “I will only work until today,” but in fact intend to continue working for the company, it is very important for the prevention of future disputes that you promptly and clearly record your intention to withdraw such remarks through objective means such as written documents or messenger messages. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) The company should clearly define the scope of those who hold personnel authority. If personnel authority has not been delegated to on-site managers such as store managers, this should be clearly stipulated in the rules of employment, personnel regulations, etc. Conversely, if a certain scope of personnel authority has been delegated, you must document the scope and procedures of such delegation; otherwise, you may later face disputes over claims such as “store manager’s notice of dismissal = company’s dismissal.” Furthermore, to prevent employees from perceiving emotional remarks by on-site managers as de facto dismissals, the company should establish internal training and management systems to ensure that any statements related to discipline or dismissal are handled exclusively through formal procedures and written notices (Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act) by HR personnel or the company representative. In cases of this type where the existence of dismissal is in dispute, the legal consequences and the burden of proof differ significantly depending on whether the termination of the employment relationship is an employer’s unilateral dismissal or an employee’s resignation/mutual termination. It is therefore crucial to organize the relevant facts and evidence systematically at an early stage. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History The employee claimed that a dismissal existed because he had been notified of dismissal by the store manager to whom the employer had delegated personnel authority. However, as it could not be regarded that the employer had delegated personnel authority to the store manager and there was no fact of dismissal by the employer, the employee’s application was dismissed. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning There was no evidence to show that the employer had delegated to the store manager in this case the authority to appoint and dismiss the employee, and the employee himself, immediately after the store manager’s remarks, called the employer’s spouse several times to confirm whether the store manager’s remarks reflected the employer’s intention. This shows that the employee also recognized that the store manager was not the final decision-maker in personnel matters. The employer’s spouse did not make any remarks acknowledging or approving a dismissal, but instead requested that the employee continue working. Nevertheless, on the day of the incident, the employee expressed an intention to resign to the effect that “I will only work until today,” did not withdraw this, and failed to report to work from 26 May 2026 onward. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it cannot be deemed that the employer or the employer’s spouse dismissed the employee, and there is no other evidence to recognize a dismissal. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (misunderstanding of store manager’s remarks), 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. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Procedural Defect (Failure to Implement Disciplinary Procedures)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (misunderstanding of store manager’s remarks) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions on Expression of Intent to Resign (Misunderstanding of Store Manager’s Remarks).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article