[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “resignation / termination by agreement (recommendation to resign due to managerial necessity).” Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2026Buhae2389 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-09-07 · Result: Dismissed Key issue summary: ① The employee in 2026 … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the employer, in the course of implementing workforce reductions on the grounds of managerial necessity, proposed a recommended resignation to the employee. The dispute before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the separation from employment constituted a dismissal or a termination by agreement. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in a comprehensive manner, the circumstances surrounding the employer’s report of loss of employment insurance coverage and the employee’s receipt of unemployment benefits, and determined whether the termination of the employment relationship amounted to an unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where resignation is recommended due to managerial necessity, can the termination still be regarded as a unilateral dismissal by the employer even when the employee personally requests that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage be recorded as ‘recommended resignation’ and completes the handover of duties?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that: immediately after the employee’s meeting with the employer, the employee asked the head of accounting to process the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage as “recommended resignation”; thereafter, the employee reported having completed the handover of duties on their own initiative; and the employer reported the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage as “resignation due to workforce reduction on grounds of managerial necessity,” on the basis of which the employee received unemployment benefits. In light of these facts, the panel held that it was reasonable to view the employee as having accepted the employer’s recommendation to resign and consented to the termination of the employment relationship. The Commission determined that the termination in this case could not readily be regarded as a unilateral dismissal by the employer, and that the employment relationship had instead ended in the form of a termination by agreement following the employee’s acceptance of the recommended resignation. Accordingly, it held that the case did not constitute an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) If an employee accepts a recommended resignation, then personally requests that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage be recorded as “recommended resignation,” completes the handover of duties, and, on that basis, receives unemployment benefits, it may become very difficult to later assert before the Labor Relations Commission that the separation was a “unilateral unfair dismissal.” When presented with a proposal for recommended resignation, it is important to carefully examine whether the situation constitutes a dismissal, a termination by agreement, and whether the statutory requirements for collective redundancy (economic dismissal) are satisfied. Where necessary, employees should respond prudently with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when implementing workforce reductions due to managerial necessity, it is important to preserve objective records of the contents of meetings with employees, whether a recommended resignation was proposed, the employee’s expression of acceptance, the progress of the handover of duties, and the process of selecting and notifying the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage. In particular, where recommended resignation or termination by agreement is used in circumstances where the requirements for collective redundancy are not met, it is crucial to clearly establish that the employee’s expression of intent was voluntary, so as to prevent future disputes over unfair dismissal. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History In light of the following: ① on 24 March 2026, after meeting with the employer, the employee asked the head of accounting to record the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage as “recommended resignation”; ② on 30 March 2026, the employee reported to the employer that the handover of duties had been completed; and ③ the employer reported the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage for the employee as “resignation due to workforce reduction on grounds of managerial necessity,” and the employee received unemployment benefits accordingly; it is difficult to view the situation as one in which the employer unilaterally dismissed the employee, and it is instead to be regarded that the employment relationship was terminated by agreement following the employee’s acceptance of the employer’s recommendation to resign. There is no … 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning In light of the following: ① on 24 March 2026, after meeting with the employer, the employee asked the head of accounting to record the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage as “recommended resignation”; ② on 30 March 2026, the employee reported to the employer that the handover of duties had been completed; and ③ the employer reported the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage for the employee as “resignation due to workforce reduction on grounds of managerial necessity,” and the employee received unemployment benefits accordingly; it is difficult to view the situation as one in which the employer unilaterally dismissed the employee, and it is instead to be regarded that the employment relationship was terminated by agreement following the employee’s acceptance of the employer’s recommendation to resign. There is no … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Renewal (Conversion from Dispatched to Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, resignation / termination by agreement (recommendation to resign due to managerial necessity), restructuring, recommended resignation / termination by agreement, 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Renewal (Conversion from Dispatched to Fixed-Term Employment)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to resignation / termination by agreement (recommendation to resign due to managerial necessity) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Resignation / Termination by Agreement (Recommendation to Resign Due to Managerial Necessity).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article