[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed on the issue of “refusal of resignation upon employer’s recommendation (use of annual leave).” Date of decision: 2026-07-30 · Labor Relations Commission: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해576 Key issue summary: A. Existence of dismissal The Commission found, based on recordings and other evidence, that the employer demanded that the employee submit a resignation letter effective 2026-06-30 on the condition that the employee work until 2026-05-29 and receive one month’s wages, and that the employee clearly expressed an intention to continue working and refused this request. The employee’s application for and use of a half-day leave on the afternoon of 2026-05-28 and annual leave on 2026-05-29 constituted the legitimate exercise of rights guaranteed under the Labor Standards Act… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This decision concerns an unfair dismissal case where the key issue was whether an employment relationship could be regarded as having ended by way of resignation upon the employer’s recommendation, even though the employee had expressly refused the employer’s request to submit a resignation letter one month later. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the recordings, attendance records, and whether the four major social insurances were processed, among other things, to determine whether a resignation upon recommendation had been formed, whether the dismissal was effective, and whether the employer had violated the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employer proposed a resignation upon recommendation on the condition that the employee submit a resignation letter “one month later,” but the employee refused, the termination of the employment relationship can be regarded as a resignation upon recommendation, or, if not, whether it constitutes unilateral unfair dismissal by the employer. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that: the employer demanded that the employee submit a resignation letter dated 2026-06-30 on the condition that the employee work until 2026-05-29 and receive one month’s wages; that the recordings and other evidence confirmed the employee clearly expressed an intention to continue working and refused this demand; and that the employee’s use of a half-day leave and annual leave appeared to be defensive measures to avoid disadvantages such as being treated as absent without leave, rather than implied acceptance of the proposal for resignation upon recommendation. Accordingly, the Commission held that it was difficult to find that the employment relationship had ended by agreement on resignation upon recommendation, or that negotiations on resignation upon recommendation were still ongoing. It further held that the mere absence of post-termination administrative steps such as filing loss-of-coverage reports for the four major social insurances or settling severance pay did not mean that no dismissal had occurred, and that notifying the dismissal only orally without providing written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal violated the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, rendering the dismissal procedurally unlawful. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair. [Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings – Legal Analysis] The Commission premised its decision on the fact that the level of protection afforded to employees and the legitimate reasons and procedures required of employers differ depending on whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship is resignation/termination by agreement or dismissal. Dismissal, regardless of its label or form, means any measure by which the employer unilaterally terminates the employment relationship against the employee’s will, whereas resignation/termination by agreement requires an expression of voluntary intent by the employee or mutual agreement between the parties. This reflects the purport of Supreme Court precedents. In particular, even in cases of resignation upon recommendation, the employee’s express or implied acceptance must be recognized. In this case, however, the Commission denied the existence of resignation or termination by agreement on the grounds that the employee consistently expressed an intention to continue working and, apart from the defensive use of annual leave, there was no conduct that could be regarded as indicating an intention to resign. In addition, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the employer must notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal for the dismissal to become effective. This is a mandatory provision intended to clarify whether and when a dismissal has occurred, thereby reducing disputes and enabling the employee to respond appropriately. In this case, the employer notified the dismissal only orally and failed to provide written notice. Therefore, even if a dismissal is found to have occurred, its effect cannot be recognized, and the procedural defect in the dismissal is clear. The decision thus follows the existing case law and commentary on this point. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) If an employee receives a proposal for resignation upon recommendation but has no intention of resigning, the employee should, as in this case, repeatedly express an intention to continue working in clear language and, if possible, preserve objective evidence such as recordings, text messages, or emails. Use of half-day or annual leave, or temporary non-attendance due to the employer’s restriction on reporting to work, may be misunderstood as implied acceptance of resignation. It is therefore important to clearly inform the employer that the purpose of such measures is to avoid dismissal or prevent disadvantages, and to organize and keep related materials. Furthermore, if the employer orally informs the employee, for example, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” the employee should immediately request written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, and should also record the fact that such written notice was not received. When later filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, systematically organizing and submitting the circumstances of refusal of resignation upon recommendation, the timing of the dismissal notice, and the absence of written notice will allow the employee, with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to conduct the case more advantageously. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between resignation upon recommendation and dismissal, and to bear in mind that attempts to terminate the employment relationship by using the form of resignation upon recommendation despite the absence of the employee’s voluntary intention to resign may be found to constitute unfair dismissal. Even if the employer proposes resignation upon recommendation, once the employee has expressly refused, any subsequent restriction on reporting to work or exclusion from duties may be evaluated as de facto dismissal. In such cases, the employer must satisfy the requirement of just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and the written notice requirement under Article 27. In particular, once a decision to dismiss has been made, the employer must provide, in advance, a written document specifying in detail the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, and must understand that post-termination administrative steps such as filing loss-of-coverage reports for the four major social insurances or settling severance pay cannot substitute for the existence of dismissal itself. The Labor Relations Commission and the courts take the view that once the cause of termination of the employment relationship is evaluated as dismissal rather than resignation/termination by agreement, the employer bears the responsibility and burden of proof for the legitimacy of the dismissal and compliance with due process. Accordingly, employers should consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the HR and labor management planning stage to design appropriate procedures. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that, once the employer demanded that the employee submit a resignation letter one month later while recommending resignation, and the employee refused, it was difficult to find that the employment relationship had ended by resignation upon recommendation or that the parties were in the process of negotiating resignation upon recommendation. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Existence of Dismissal The following facts were established: the employer demanded that the employee work until 2026-05-29 and, on the condition that the employee receive one month’s wages, submit a resignation letter dated 2026-06-30; and the recordings and other evidence confirmed that the employee in this case expressed an intention to continue working and refused this demand. The employee’s application for and use of a half-day leave on the afternoon of 2026-05-28 and annual leave on 2026-05-29 constituted the legitimate exercise of rights guaranteed under the Labor Standards Act and appeared to be defensive measures to prevent disadvantages such as being treated as absent without leave, in light of the employer’s policy of refusing to accept the employee’s labor from 2026-05-30. It is difficult to regard these actions as implied acceptance of the proposal for resignation upon recommendation or of the termination of the employment relationship. After the employer became aware that an application for remedy had been filed, the employer asked the employee whether the employee would accept resignation upon recommendation and indicated that the employee could work if the employee did not accept. However, this conduct occurred only after the dismissal as of 2026-05-30 and is insufficient to serve as a basis for finding that negotiations on resignation upon recommendation were still ongoing. In addition, loss-of-coverage reports for the four major social insurances and settlement of severance pay are merely post-termination administrative procedures that arise incidentally upon termination of the employment relationship. The mere fact that the employer did not carry out these procedures cannot, by itself, negate the very formation of dismissal. b. Legitimacy of the Dismissal It was established that the employer notified the employee of the dismissal orally without providing written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the employer violated the written notice obligation, and the dismissal is unlawful. [Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Remedial Interest · Refusal of Reemployment (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, refusal of resignation upon recommendation (use of annual leave), 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 ‘Dismissal for Poor Performance (Entrusted HR · Employer Status)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to refusal of resignation upon recommendation (use of annual leave) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Refusal of Resignation upon Recommendation (Use of Annual Leave).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article