[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “refusal of resignation upon employer’s recommendation (use of annual leave).” Adjudicating Body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae576 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-30 · Outcome: Fully Upheld Key Issue Summary: a. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case arose from a situation in which the employer demanded that the employee submit a resignation letter dated June 30, 2026, on the condition that the employee work until May 29, 2026, and receive one month’s wages. The employee refused this demand and clearly expressed an intention to continue working. Thereafter, the employee applied for and used a half-day of leave on the afternoon of May 28 and annual leave on May 29. From May 30, the employer refused to accept the employee’s labor and in effect unilaterally terminated the employment relationship. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision fully upholding the employee’s claim. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employer demanded submission of a resignation letter but the employee expressly refused and lawfully used annual and half-day leave, the employer’s refusal to accept labor and termination of the employment contract can be regarded as resignation upon employer’s recommendation or termination by mutual agreement, or whether it constitutes unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employer demanded that the employee submit a resignation letter dated June 30 on the condition that the employee work until a specified date and receive one month’s wages; that the employee, as confirmed by recordings and other evidence, clearly expressed an intention to continue working and refused to submit a resignation letter; and that the employee’s use of a half-day of leave on May 28 and annual leave on May 29 was an exercise of a legitimate right guaranteed under the Labor Standards Act and appears to have been a defensive measure taken in response to the employer’s policy of refusing to accept labor as of May 30. In light of the above, the adjudicating panel held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute resignation upon employer’s recommendation or termination by mutual agreement based on the employee’s voluntary choice to resign, but rather amounted to a dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract, and therefore found it to be unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) If an employee has no intention to resign, it is important, as in this case, to clearly express the “intention to continue working” through recordings, text messages, emails, and similar means. In addition, the use of annual and half-day leave is a right guaranteed under the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, if an employer attempts to characterize such use as unauthorized absence or to force resignation upon employer’s recommendation on that basis, the employee should promptly consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) When proceeding with resignation upon employer’s recommendation, the key issue is whether it is based on the employee’s free will. Employers should be aware that unilaterally forcing resignation or effectively giving notice of dismissal in the form of “if you submit a resignation letter by a certain date, we will pay you a certain amount” carries a very high risk of being found to be unfair dismissal. Furthermore, if an employee applies for annual leave, the employer should respect that request unless there are special circumstances that would justify exercising the statutory right to change the timing of leave under the Labor Standards Act due to serious disruption to business operations. Employers should avoid terminating the employment relationship by unilaterally refusing to accept labor. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Existence of Dismissal The facts that the employer demanded that the employee submit a resignation letter dated June 30, 2026, on the condition that the employee work until May 29, 2026, and receive one month’s wages, and that the employee in this case refused while expressing an intention to continue working, are confirmed through recordings and other evidence. The employee’s application for and use of a half-day of leave on the afternoon of May 28, 2026, and annual leave on May 29, 2026, constituted an exercise of a legitimate right guaranteed under the Labor Standards Act and appears to have been a defensive measure taken to prevent disadvantages such as being treated as absent without leave in response to the employer’s policy, as of May 30, 2026, of refusing to accept labor, and cannot be regarded as resignation upon employer’s recommendation … 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Existence of Dismissal The facts that the employer demanded that the employee submit a resignation letter dated June 30, 2026, on the condition that the employee work until May 29, 2026, and receive one month’s wages, and that the employee in this case refused while expressing an intention to continue working, are confirmed through recordings and other evidence. The employee’s application for and use of a half-day of leave on the afternoon of May 28, 2026, and annual leave on May 29, 2026, constituted an exercise of a legitimate right guaranteed under the Labor Standards Act and appears to have been a defensive measure taken to prevent disadvantages such as being treated as absent without leave in response to the employer’s policy, as of May 30, 2026, of refusing to accept labor, and cannot be regarded as resignation upon employer’s recommendation … / [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Dismissal for Poor Performance in the Ordinary Course (Entrusted HR · Employer Status)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, refusal of resignation upon employer’s 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Dismissal for Poor Performance in the Ordinary Course (Entrusted HR · Employer Status)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of precedents relating to refusal of resignation upon employer’s recommendation (use of annual leave) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Relating to Refusal of Resignation upon Employer’s Recommendation (Use of Annual Leave).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article