[Case Information] This case concerns a decision that was concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld, on the issue of a “declaration of intention not reflecting true intent (voluntary resignation after notice of removal from team leader position).” Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae440 ○○○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-04 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld Key issue summary: ① The employee in 2025 … 1. Legal Implications In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employee’s indication of intent to resign constituted a dismissal, and ultimately rejected the employee’s application for remedy. This is a type of case frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, and it is particularly necessary to examine the extent to which a claim of unfair dismissal can be recognized where a voluntary resignation is tendered after notice of removal from a position. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee was serving as a team leader at the company when the employer notified the employee of removal from the team leader position, effective on a specified date (1 December 2025). In response, the employee expressed an intention to resign effective 30 November 2025, i.e., the day before the removal from the team leader position was to take effect. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that this resignation should be regarded as a de facto dismissal. However, both the first-instance Labor Relations Commission and the Central Labor Relations Commission on re‑examination accepted the employer’s position and upheld the first-instance decision. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether “an employee at team leader level who, for career management purposes, submits a resignation before the effective date of removal from position after receiving notice of such removal, can have that indication of intent to resign regarded as a coerced resignation or a ‘declaration of intention not reflecting true intent’ equivalent to a dismissal by the employer.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the employee expressed an intention to resign as of 30 November 2025; that there were no specific circumstances or evidence to suggest that the employee’s indication of intent to resign was made under coercion or compulsion by the employer; and that the employee chose to resign based on the employee’s own judgment that resigning before the effective date of removal from the team leader position would be advantageous in maintaining “team leader” experience when changing jobs. In light of the above, the panel found it difficult to regard the indication of intent to resign as a “declaration of intention not reflecting true intent” lacking an internal intention to produce legal effect. Accordingly, the panel held that no dismissal existed in this case, and therefore the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal could not be accepted. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Where an employee submits a written resignation or clearly expresses an intention to resign orally, the Labor Relations Commissions and courts generally tend to recognize the resignation as valid unless there is objective evidence proving that the employee had virtually no choice due to coercion, threats, or similar pressure. In particular, where an employee voluntarily chooses to resign with the attitude of “I would rather leave” due to concerns about redundancy, removal from position, or disciplinary action, it is very difficult to later retract that decision and successfully claim unfair dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly establish, before any dispute arises, that the resignation was based on the employee’s genuine and voluntary intent. To that end, employers should keep records—such as emails or interview/memorandum notes—of the circumstances leading to the resignation, the employee’s reasons for choosing resignation, and whether a sufficient cooling‑off period was provided. Furthermore, if, in the context of restructuring or collective redundancies, the employer obtained resignations in a blanket manner or engaged in conduct tantamount to forcing resignations, such resignations may be deemed “declarations of intention not reflecting true intent,” rendered null and void, and treated as unfair dismissals. Therefore, procedures for resignation or voluntary retirement should always be conducted in a manner that guarantees voluntariness and free choice. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History (1) There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the employee expressed an intention to resign as of 30 November 2025, and there are no circumstances or evidence suggesting that the employee’s indication of intent to resign was made under coercion or compulsion; (2) it is recognized that, with respect to the removal from position effective 1 December 2025, which the employer notified on 13 November 2025, the employee judged that resigning before the effective date of removal would be the best way to be recognized as having “team leader” experience when changing jobs, and therefore expressed an intention to resign as of 30 November 2025. Accordingly, it is difficult to regard this as a declaration of intention not reflecting true intent, lacking an internal intention to produce legal effect … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (1) There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the employee expressed an intention to resign as of 30 November 2025, and there are no circumstances or evidence suggesting that the employee’s indication of intent to resign was made under coercion or compulsion; (2) it is recognized that, with respect to the removal from position effective 1 December 2025, which the employer notified on 13 November 2025, the employee judged that resigning before the effective date of removal would be the best way to be recognized as having “team leader” experience when changing jobs, and therefore expressed an intention to resign as of 30 November 2025. Accordingly, it is difficult to regard this as a declaration of intention not reflecting true intent, lacking an internal intention to produce legal effect … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Involving a Declaration of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Involving Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Involving Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, declaration of intention not reflecting true intent (voluntary resignation after notice of removal from team leader position), 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, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Involving Disciplinary Sanction Level (Workplace Bullying · Sexual Harassment),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to declarations of intention not reflecting true intent (voluntary resignation after notice of removal from team leader position) can be viewed together on the page “List of Decisions on Declarations of Intention Not Reflecting True Intent (Voluntary Resignation After Notice of Removal from Team Leader Position).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article