[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to resign (oral resignation declaration).” Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae304 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-14 · Case Result: Dismissed Summary of Key Issue: The employee’s assertion that the employment relationship was terminated because the employer implicitly expressed an intent to dismiss by refusing to accept labor was found to be unsupported by specific evidence; therefore, it was determined that no dismissal existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee claimed unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, arguing that there had been an implicit dismissal by the employer—namely, that the employer had refused to accept labor, thereby terminating the employment relationship. Focusing on the circumstances in which the employee, while at work, stated “I will quit” and “I cannot work with the director” and then left the workplace, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship was dismissal or voluntary resignation. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, when an employee, in an emotional situation, verbally states “I will quit” and leaves the workplace, this should be regarded as a genuine expression of intent to resign and thus evaluated as a voluntary resignation, or whether it can be viewed as an unfair dismissal based on the employer’s implied intent. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that there was no specific evidence to support the claim that the employer had implicitly expressed an intent to dismiss by refusing to accept labor. It further noted that, on 28 May 2026, the employee explicitly stated while at work, “I will quit” and “I cannot work with the director,” and immediately thereafter, at around 12:30, voluntarily left the workplace. In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that the employee had orally expressed an intent to resign to the employer and, on the basis of that expression, had voluntarily ceased providing labor. Accordingly, it was held that no dismissal existed in this case, and the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was to be dismissed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For an employee to successfully claim unfair dismissal, it is necessary to substantiate, with sufficiently concrete circumstances and evidence, that the employer explicitly or implicitly expressed an intent to dismiss and refused to accept labor. Conversely, if the employee says “I will quit” and immediately stops reporting to work, labor commissions and courts are highly likely to evaluate the situation as a voluntary resignation. This point must be kept firmly in mind. Even if made in a heated emotional situation, an expression of intent to resign that terminates the employment relationship can be valid even when made orally. Therefore, employees should avoid impulsive declarations of resignation as much as possible, and where a dispute is anticipated, they should respond only after consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) To prevent unfair dismissal disputes, employers should, when an employee expresses an intent to resign, record and preserve as concretely as possible the circumstances and content of the conversations. In particular, labor commissions and court precedents tend to place the burden of proof regarding the grounds for termination of the employment relationship—such as dismissal, resignation, or mutual termination—on the employer depending on the situation. Employers should therefore systematically manage objective circumstances such as whether a written resignation was submitted, whether there were oral statements of resignation, and whether the employee reported to work thereafter. In addition, if, at the stage where an employee is merely voicing dissatisfaction, the employer uses expressions such as “Then quit” or “Get out right now,” these may be misunderstood as an expression of intent to dismiss. If the employer does not actually intend to carry out a redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal, particular care must be taken with wording and response methods. Finally, the distinction between unfair dismissal and voluntary resignation often comes down to a contest over facts and evidence. In the event of a similar case, it is advisable at an early stage to seek assistance from experts well-versed in Labor Relations Commission practice and case law, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to structure and analyze the case. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History The employee’s assertion that the employment relationship was terminated because the employer implicitly expressed an intent to dismiss by refusing to accept labor was found to be unsupported by specific evidence; therefore, it was determined that no dismissal existed. Considering that, as confirmed in the hearing, on 28 May 2026, while working at the first-floor Doer workplace, the employee stated “I will quit” and “I cannot work with the director” and then left the workplace at around 12:30, it is determined that, on 28 May 2026, the employee orally expressed an intent to resign and voluntarily resigned. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The employee’s assertion that the employment relationship was terminated because the employer implicitly expressed an intent to dismiss by refusing to accept labor was found to be unsupported by specific evidence; therefore, it was determined that no dismissal existed. Considering that, as confirmed in the hearing, on 28 May 2026, while working at the first-floor Doer workplace, the employee stated “I will quit” and “I cannot work with the director” and then left the workplace at around 12:30, it is determined that, on 28 May 2026, the employee orally expressed an intent to resign and voluntarily resigned. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement via Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-Instance Decision Upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Disciplinary Measure Level (Workplace Bullying by Head of Finance Division)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to resign (oral resignation declaration), 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 Decision Concerning ‘Disciplinary Measure Level (Workplace Bullying by Head of Finance Division)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to expression of intent to resign (oral resignation declaration) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Oral Resignation Declaration).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article