Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Resignation Letter as Mutual Termination (No Verbal Dismissal Notice)” (Unfair Dismissal 64)
- Date2026/01/10 23:08
- Read 202
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision relating to “resignation letter as mutual termination (no verbal dismissal notice)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae3949 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome: (i) Although the worker claimed to have received a verbal dismissal notice, no objective evidence was submitted; (ii) the worker submitted a handwritten resignation letter, and there was no proof that it was written under duress; (iii) after submitting the resignation letter, the worker inquired about wages and monthly leave allowance. In light of these circumstances, the employment relationship was deemed to have been terminated by mutual agreement upon the worker’s submission of the resignation letter, and therefore no dismissal existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, alleging that the employer had verbally notified him of dismissal. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application, holding that the worker’s submission of a handwritten resignation letter constituted a mutual termination of the employment contract. The Commission, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the submission of the resignation letter and the subsequent inquiries about wages and monthly leave allowance, determined that no dismissal had occurred at all.
The key issue in this case was: “Where a worker alleges a verbal dismissal, but has submitted a handwritten resignation letter and, in light of subsequent circumstances, the question arises whether the termination of the employment relationship constitutes an unfair dismissal or a resignation/mutual termination.”
The panel in this case found that: (i) there was no objective evidence to support the worker’s allegation of a verbal dismissal notice; (ii) the worker personally wrote and submitted a handwritten resignation letter, and there was no proof that his freedom of decision-making had been deprived by coercion, threats, etc.; and (iii) after submitting the resignation letter, the worker inquired about payment of wages and monthly leave allowance, thereby acting on the premise of his own resignation.
Accordingly, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement when the employer accepted the worker’s expression of intent to resign.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in a situation where the worker claims to have been verbally notified of dismissal, the existence of a handwritten resignation letter and the worker’s subsequent conduct support a finding that a dismissal occurred, or whether the employment relationship should instead be regarded as having ended by the worker’s voluntary resignation/mutual termination.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
First, the Labor Relations Commission placed weight on the fact that no objective evidence—such as text messages, recordings, or consistent third-party statements—had been submitted to substantiate the worker’s allegation of a verbal dismissal notice. Second, it noted that the worker had written and submitted a handwritten resignation letter, and that there was no evidence that his freedom of decision-making had been deprived in the process by the employer’s abusive language or threats, prolonged confinement, or repeated coercion. Third, considering the circumstances that, after submitting the resignation letter, the worker inquired about payment of wages and monthly leave allowance and otherwise requested processing on the premise of his own resignation, the Commission held that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement through the submission of the resignation letter, and that no dismissal existed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
To challenge an unfair dismissal, it is not sufficient for a worker merely to assert that he or she was “verbally dismissed.” The worker must secure objective evidence supporting the fact of a dismissal notice, such as recordings, text messages, emails, notes of meetings, or third-party statements. In addition, if, after submitting a resignation letter, the worker inquires about settlement of wages and allowances or otherwise acts on the premise of resignation, it may be difficult for the Labor Relations Commission to accept a later claim that the resignation did not reflect the worker’s true intent or that it was forced.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
When using resignation/mutual termination in the context of workforce restructuring, including redundancies, it is important for the company to maintain written records (resignation letters, interview records, etc.) clearly showing that the worker’s expression of intent to resign was voluntary and based on free will. Conversely, if the company uses expressions such as “Get out” or “Quit” verbally, or obtains a resignation letter through repeated pressure to resign or coercive interviews, there is a high risk that this will in substance be found to constitute an unfair dismissal. Accordingly, companies should establish HR and labor procedures in advance and proceed with the advice of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of (i) the fact that, although the worker claimed to have received a verbal dismissal notice, no objective evidence was submitted; (ii) the fact that the worker submitted a handwritten resignation letter and there was no proof that it was written under duress; and (iii) the fact that, after submitting the resignation letter, the worker inquired about wages and monthly leave allowance, the employment relationship was deemed to have been terminated by mutual agreement upon the worker’s submission of the resignation letter, and therefore it was determined that no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
In light of (i) the fact that, although the worker claimed to have received a verbal dismissal notice, no objective evidence was submitted; (ii) the fact that the worker submitted a handwritten resignation letter and there was no proof that it was written under duress; and (iii) the fact that, after submitting the resignation letter, the worker inquired about wages and monthly leave allowance, the employment relationship was deemed to have been terminated by mutual agreement upon the worker’s submission of the resignation letter, and therefore it was determined that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Misconstrued Mutual Termination (Agreement with Employee Representative)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully upheld
- “‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Refusal to Comply with Reinstatement Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, resignation letter as mutual termination (no verbal dismissal notice), 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Misconstrued Mutual Termination (Agreement with Employee Representative)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to resignation letter as mutual termination (no verbal dismissal notice) can be viewed together on the “Resignation Letter as Mutual Termination (No Verbal Dismissal Notice) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision relating to “resignation letter as mutual termination (no verbal dismissal notice)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae3949 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome: (i) Although the worker claimed to have received a verbal dismissal notice, no objective evidence was submitted; (ii) the worker submitted a handwritten resignation letter, and there was no proof that it was written under duress; (iii) after submitting the resignation letter, the worker inquired about wages and monthly leave allowance. In light of these circumstances, the employment relationship was deemed to have been terminated by mutual agreement upon the worker’s submission of the resignation letter, and therefore no dismissal existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, alleging that the employer had verbally notified him of dismissal. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application, holding that the worker’s submission of a handwritten resignation letter constituted a mutual termination of the employment contract. The Commission, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the submission of the resignation letter and the subsequent inquiries about wages and monthly leave allowance, determined that no dismissal had occurred at all.
The key issue in this case was: “Where a worker alleges a verbal dismissal, but has submitted a handwritten resignation letter and, in light of subsequent circumstances, the question arises whether the termination of the employment relationship constitutes an unfair dismissal or a resignation/mutual termination.”
The panel in this case found that: (i) there was no objective evidence to support the worker’s allegation of a verbal dismissal notice; (ii) the worker personally wrote and submitted a handwritten resignation letter, and there was no proof that his freedom of decision-making had been deprived by coercion, threats, etc.; and (iii) after submitting the resignation letter, the worker inquired about payment of wages and monthly leave allowance, thereby acting on the premise of his own resignation.
Accordingly, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement when the employer accepted the worker’s expression of intent to resign.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in a situation where the worker claims to have been verbally notified of dismissal, the existence of a handwritten resignation letter and the worker’s subsequent conduct support a finding that a dismissal occurred, or whether the employment relationship should instead be regarded as having ended by the worker’s voluntary resignation/mutual termination.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
First, the Labor Relations Commission placed weight on the fact that no objective evidence—such as text messages, recordings, or consistent third-party statements—had been submitted to substantiate the worker’s allegation of a verbal dismissal notice. Second, it noted that the worker had written and submitted a handwritten resignation letter, and that there was no evidence that his freedom of decision-making had been deprived in the process by the employer’s abusive language or threats, prolonged confinement, or repeated coercion. Third, considering the circumstances that, after submitting the resignation letter, the worker inquired about payment of wages and monthly leave allowance and otherwise requested processing on the premise of his own resignation, the Commission held that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement through the submission of the resignation letter, and that no dismissal existed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
To challenge an unfair dismissal, it is not sufficient for a worker merely to assert that he or she was “verbally dismissed.” The worker must secure objective evidence supporting the fact of a dismissal notice, such as recordings, text messages, emails, notes of meetings, or third-party statements. In addition, if, after submitting a resignation letter, the worker inquires about settlement of wages and allowances or otherwise acts on the premise of resignation, it may be difficult for the Labor Relations Commission to accept a later claim that the resignation did not reflect the worker’s true intent or that it was forced.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
When using resignation/mutual termination in the context of workforce restructuring, including redundancies, it is important for the company to maintain written records (resignation letters, interview records, etc.) clearly showing that the worker’s expression of intent to resign was voluntary and based on free will. Conversely, if the company uses expressions such as “Get out” or “Quit” verbally, or obtains a resignation letter through repeated pressure to resign or coercive interviews, there is a high risk that this will in substance be found to constitute an unfair dismissal. Accordingly, companies should establish HR and labor procedures in advance and proceed with the advice of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of (i) the fact that, although the worker claimed to have received a verbal dismissal notice, no objective evidence was submitted; (ii) the fact that the worker submitted a handwritten resignation letter and there was no proof that it was written under duress; and (iii) the fact that, after submitting the resignation letter, the worker inquired about wages and monthly leave allowance, the employment relationship was deemed to have been terminated by mutual agreement upon the worker’s submission of the resignation letter, and therefore it was determined that no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
In light of (i) the fact that, although the worker claimed to have received a verbal dismissal notice, no objective evidence was submitted; (ii) the fact that the worker submitted a handwritten resignation letter and there was no proof that it was written under duress; and (iii) the fact that, after submitting the resignation letter, the worker inquired about wages and monthly leave allowance, the employment relationship was deemed to have been terminated by mutual agreement upon the worker’s submission of the resignation letter, and therefore it was determined that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Misconstrued Mutual Termination (Agreement with Employee Representative)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully upheld
- “‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Refusal to Comply with Reinstatement Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, resignation letter as mutual termination (no verbal dismissal notice), 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Misconstrued Mutual Termination (Agreement with Employee Representative)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to resignation letter as mutual termination (no verbal dismissal notice) can be viewed together on the “Resignation Letter as Mutual Termination (No Verbal Dismissal Notice) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
