[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “genuineness of intention to resign (taxi driver who drove off with door open).” Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae183 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-10-01 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: … There was no notice of any disadvantage, and the employee had already received a decision of non-indictment in relation to the act of driving off with the door open, so he could have refused the demand to resign and contested the matter. 1. Legal Implications This article examines, through a decision of the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, how the Labor Relations Commission assesses the genuineness of an employee’s intention to resign in unfair dismissal disputes. In particular, it reviews the issues surrounding a letter of resignation submitted after misconduct related to driving off with the door open, and organizes the legal principles of similar cases that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee, who worked for a taxi company, was investigated for driving off while a door was open during operation, but ultimately received a decision of non-indictment in the criminal proceedings. In the subsequent process with the company, the employee submitted a letter of resignation and then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that he had in substance been unfairly dismissed. The Commission first focused its review on whether the employment contract in this case had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral dismissal, or by mutual termination following the employee’s resignation. It then comprehensively examined the genuineness of the resignation, whether there was coercion or deceit, and the meaning of the employee’s request to withdraw or change the resignation. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether the letter of resignation submitted in the course of dealings with the company after the misconduct of driving off with the door open constituted a mutual termination based on a genuine intention to resign, or whether it amounted to a dismissal in the form of a voluntary resignation, and thus an unfair dismissal. More specifically, the key contested issues were: (i) whether the employer had in effect forced the employee to resign by implying serious disciplinary measures or exaggerating disadvantages; (ii) whether, despite having an objective opportunity to refuse the demand to resign and contest the matter, the employee nonetheless chose to resign of his own accord; and (iii) whether the employee’s post-submission request to “change the reason for resignation” could be regarded as a withdrawal of his intention to resign. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that, rather than the employer specifically notifying the employee that he would be subject to serious disciplinary action or criminal disadvantages and thereby forcing him to resign, the following circumstances were established: the employee had already received a decision of non-indictment in relation to the act of driving off with the door open; he was in a position where he could have refused the demand to resign and contested the matter through legal proceedings; and on the day he submitted his letter of resignation, what the employee requested was not a “withdrawal of resignation” but merely a “change in the reason for resignation for the purpose of receiving unemployment benefits.” In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the employee, having comprehensively considered the situation at the time, determined that resignation was the best option and voluntarily expressed his intention to resign; that there was insufficient evidence to regard this expression of intent as a declaration not reflecting his true intention or as one made under fraud or duress; and that, ultimately, the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement upon the submission and acceptance of the letter of resignation, so that the “dismissal” that forms the premise of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal did not exist. Accordingly, the panel held that the “dismissal” in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal, and that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement based on resignation. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if the company’s pressure feels significant psychologically, it is crucial to note that, in the Commission’s later assessment, it is very important whether, objectively, the employee was in a situation where he could have refused the demand to resign and contested the matter. Before submitting a letter of resignation, it is advisable to calmly confirm the status of any criminal proceedings, the possibility of disciplinary action, and the employer’s specific statements; after submitting a letter of resignation, you should clearly record your intention—whether it is a “change of reason for the purpose of unemployment benefits” or a “withdrawal of resignation”—via text message, email, or other written means. In addition, to challenge the genuineness of the resignation, it is important to secure evidence (recordings, text messages, messenger logs, written statements, etc.) showing that free decision-making was in fact impossible due to the employer’s abusive language or threats, prolonged waiting or isolation, or concrete threats of disciplinary or criminal sanctions. You should bear in mind that merely stating the subjective circumstance that you “felt pressured” will not easily lead to recognition that the resignation was a declaration not reflecting your true intention or one made under duress. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even when a disciplinary matter arises, you should refrain from inducing the employee to resign or making statements such as “resign if you want to avoid disciplinary action or criminal punishment,” as such conduct may work to your disadvantage in subsequent unfair dismissal disputes. Where resignation is being discussed, you should keep written records or interview notes confirming the circumstances and reasons for resignation and the employee’s voluntariness, and manage in writing any changes in the employee’s attitude after submission of the letter of resignation (whether a withdrawal is requested and, if so, its content). Furthermore, unlike redundancy dismissals, resignation and mutual termination are based on the employee’s intention. Therefore, in workforce adjustment processes, if you obtain letters of resignation en masse or process separations in the form of voluntary resignations, there is a risk that these may be assessed as de facto dismissals. Accordingly, where restructuring or redundancy dismissals are unavoidable, you should design the procedures to satisfy the requirements for dismissal (urgent managerial necessity, efforts to avoid dismissal, reasonable and fair selection criteria, and good-faith consultation). Through decisions such as this, practitioners should always bear in mind that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the determination of whether there was a “dismissal or voluntary resignation” does not end with the mere existence of a letter of resignation, but is made by comprehensively considering the circumstances leading to the resignation, subsequent developments, and the employee’s range of options. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History … There was no notice of any disadvantage, and the employee had already received a decision of non-indictment in relation to the act of driving off with the door open, so he could have refused the demand to resign and contested the matter. In addition, on the day he submitted his letter of resignation, the employee requested not a withdrawal of resignation but only a change in the reason for resignation for the purpose of receiving unemployment benefits. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is reasonable to view that the employee, judging that resignation was the best option in the situation at the time, expressed his intention to resign, and that this cannot be regarded as a declaration not reflecting his true intention or as one made under fraud or duress. Therefore, as the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement upon the submission and acceptance of the letter of resignation, no dismissal exists. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings … There was no notice of any disadvantage, and the employee had already received a decision of non-indictment in relation to the act of driving off with the door open, so he could have refused the demand to resign and contested the matter. In addition, on the day he submitted his letter of resignation, the employee requested not a withdrawal of resignation but only a change in the reason for resignation for the purpose of receiving unemployment benefits. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is reasonable to view that the employee, judging that resignation was the best option in the situation at the time, expressed his intention to resign, and that this cannot be regarded as a declaration not reflecting his true intention or as one made under fraud or duress. Therefore, as the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement upon the submission and acceptance of the letter of resignation, no dismissal exists. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Business Necessity (Conflict-Related Transfer of an Employee on an Indefinite-Term Contract)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld - “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, genuineness of intention to resign (taxi driver who drove off with door open), 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. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Business Necessity (Conflict-Related Transfer of an Employee on an Indefinite-Term Contract)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the genuineness of intention to resign (taxi driver who drove off with door open) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to the Genuineness of Intention to Resign (Taxi Driver Who Drove Off With Door Open).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article