[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the key issue was the “existence of dismissal (absence of consent to resignation upon employer’s recommendation),” and the initial decision was upheld on review. Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae261 ○ ○ ○ Application for Review of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-29 · Case Result: Initial decision upheld Summary of Key Issue: - Existence of dismissal in this case – The employer asserts that it recommended resignation to the employee, that the employee agreed, and that the employee expressed an intention to cooperate with the subsequent retirement procedures. However, the employee denies these facts, and there is no evidence proving that the employee expressly consented or consented in any other manner. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a review application for remedy for unfair dismissal, in which the employer notified the employee of a recommended resignation and argued that the employee agreed and would cooperate with the retirement procedures, so that the termination of employment was a voluntary resignation rather than a dismissal. The employee claimed that he had never agreed to resign and that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract, constituting an unfair dismissal, and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for remedy. The Central Labor Relations Commission issued a review decision upholding the initial decision. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employer claims that “the employee consented to the recommended resignation,” but there is no explicit resignation letter or agreement on mutual termination, the cause of termination of the employment relationship should be regarded as a dismissal, or as the employee’s resignation/mutual termination. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employer claims it recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed and would cooperate with the retirement procedures, while the employee completely denies this. It further noted that there is no written document (such as a resignation letter or settlement agreement) or objective circumstantial evidence showing that the employee expressly agreed to resign, and that unilateral actions by the employer—such as filing an employment insurance loss report or convening a personnel committee—are insufficient to recognize the employee’s voluntary resignation or mutual termination. Accordingly, the panel found that the termination of the employment relationship in this case did not constitute resignation or mutual termination as asserted by the employer, but rather a unilateral termination against the employee’s will, i.e., a de facto dismissal. Therefore, since the employer failed to prove the existence of “consent to resignation,” the termination of the employment relationship must be evaluated as a dismissal subject to the restrictions under the Labor Standards Act, and the existence of the dismissal itself as a premise was recognized. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The dismissal in this case was held to be unfair because there was insufficient evidence to regard the cause of termination of the employment relationship as resignation, and the employer’s unilateral decision and notification of recommended resignation alone could not establish the employee’s consent. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, where the employer argues that “you agreed to the recommended resignation” or that “it was processed as voluntary resignation,” it is crucial to consistently assert and prove that you did not submit an explicit resignation letter and never made a concrete statement of intent to resign. Securing evidence—such as the content of conversations during interviews, text or messenger messages, emails, or recordings—showing that you never clearly expressed an intention to resign will be of great help in contesting unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when proceeding with a recommended resignation, it is essential to leave clear evidence—such as a written resignation letter or a written mutual termination agreement—to demonstrate that the termination is based on the employee’s voluntary intent. Simply deciding on a recommended resignation in a personnel committee and notifying the employee with words to the effect of “we will settle things as of today” makes it difficult to prove consent to resignation and creates a high risk that the termination will ultimately be found to be an unfair dismissal. Employers should therefore strictly adhere to proper procedures and documentation. To prevail in this type of unfair dismissal dispute, it is important to accurately understand the legal criteria distinguishing resignation/mutual termination from dismissal, as well as the rules on the burden of proof regarding the existence and justifiability of dismissal, and to organize the relevant facts and evidence at an early stage in line with those principles. When responding to Labor Relations Commission proceedings, it is advisable to develop a case strategy with the assistance of a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History - Existence of dismissal in this case – The employer asserts that it recommended resignation to the employee, that the employee agreed, and that the employee expressed an intention to cooperate with the subsequent retirement procedures. However, the employee denies these facts, and there is no evidence proving that the employee expressly consented or consented in any other manner. - On 1 October 2025 at around 16:00, the employer convened a personnel committee and decided on a recommended resignation for the employee. Thereafter, at around 19:00 on 1 October 2025, the employer told the employee, “As of today …” 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning - Existence of dismissal in this case – The employer asserts that it recommended resignation to the employee, that the employee agreed, and that the employee expressed an intention to cooperate with the subsequent retirement procedures. However, the employee denies these facts, and there is no evidence proving that the employee expressly consented or consented in any other manner. - On 1 October 2025 at around 16:00, the employer convened a personnel committee and decided on a recommended resignation for the employee. Thereafter, at around 19:00 on 1 October 2025, the employer told the employee, “As of today …” / [More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks Made by Telephone)” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Dismissal of Application (Nonappearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissal of Application [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (absence of consent to resignation upon employer’s recommendation), 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Disciplinary Measure Level (Misconduct of Attempted Extortion),” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (absence of consent to resignation upon employer’s recommendation) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Absence of Consent to Resignation upon Employer’s Recommendation).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article