[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (misunderstanding of store manager’s remark).” Decision body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae742 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-31 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: … The employee himself, immediately after the store manager’s remark in this case, called the employer’s spouse several times to confirm whether the store manager’s remark reflected the employer’s intention, which shows that the employee also recognized that the store manager was not the final decision-maker in personnel matters. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was handled by the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The employee regarded the store manager’s remark as a dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, but the application was dismissed. The Commission determined the cause of the termination of the employment relationship by comprehensively examining the store manager’s remark, the content of the telephone conversation with the employer’s spouse, and the circumstances under which the employee subsequently refused to report to work. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where the store manager made a remark to the effect of ‘quit,’ but contrary to the employer’s final intention, the employee stated on his own that ‘I will only work until today’ and stopped coming to work, is the cause of the termination of the employment relationship an unfair dismissal, or is it the employee’s voluntary resignation?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case noted that the person with authority over personnel matters was not the store manager; that the employee himself, immediately after the store manager’s remark, called the employer’s spouse several times to check whether it was “really a dismissal”; and that the employer’s spouse did not approve the dismissal but instead requested that the employee continue working. Taking into account these circumstances, along with the fact that the employee expressly indicated his intention to resign by stating to the effect that “I will only work until today,” did not withdraw that intention, and from a certain point in time completely stopped reporting to work, and that there were no separate measures taken by the employer indicating or approving a dismissal, the panel found that no dismissal disposition existed in this case and that the employment relationship was terminated by the employee’s expression of intent to resign. Accordingly, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) In similar situations, do not immediately conclude that you have been dismissed solely based on a store manager’s or middle manager’s remark such as “quit.” You must verify the final intention of the actual person with authority over personnel matters and whether there has been written notice. If, in the heat of the moment, you express an intention to resign by saying something like “I will only work until today,” and then stop coming to work without withdrawing that statement, the Labor Relations Commission is highly likely to regard the situation as a resignation. Therefore, if you change your mind, you should promptly communicate your intention to withdraw your resignation clearly, for example in writing. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the company’s perspective, store managers and other on-site managers should be trained not to make remarks that could be misunderstood as if they themselves hold personnel authority. For serious personnel actions such as dismissal or redundancy, you should always follow a procedure of explicit, written notice in the name of the actual person with personnel authority. In addition, if an employee, after emotionally mentioning resignation, stops reporting to work, the company should reconfirm the employee’s intention via text message, content-certified mail, or similar means, so that in any subsequent unfair dismissal dispute, it can clearly substantiate whether the employment ended by resignation. 2. Matters Determined a. Case Overview and Procedural History … The employee himself, immediately after the store manager’s remark in this case, called the employer’s spouse several times to confirm whether the store manager’s remark reflected the employer’s intention, which 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 remark to the employee that acknowledged or approved a dismissal, but instead requested that the employee continue working. Nevertheless, on the day of the incident, the employee voluntarily expressed an intention to resign to the effect that “I will only work until today,” and without withdrawing that intention, did not report to work from 26 May 2026 onward. In light of these circumstances as a whole, the employer or … 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … The employee himself, immediately after the store manager’s remark in this case, called the employer’s spouse several times to confirm whether the store manager’s remark reflected the employer’s intention, which 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 remark to the employee that acknowledged or approved a dismissal, but instead requested that the employee continue working. Nevertheless, on the day of the incident, the employee voluntarily expressed an intention to resign to the effect that “I will only work until today,” and without withdrawing that intention, did not report to work from 26 May 2026 onward. In light of these circumstances as a whole, the employer or … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Procedural Defect (Failure to Implement Disciplinary Procedure)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (misunderstanding of store manager’s remark), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Procedural Defect (Failure to Implement Disciplinary Procedure)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (misunderstanding of store manager’s remark) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Misunderstanding of Store Manager’s Remark).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article