Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Genuineness of Letter of Resignation (Employment Insurance Reported as Disciplinary Dismissal)” (Unfair Dismissal 88)
- Date2026/01/12 04:13
- Read 199
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision concerning “genuineness of letter of resignation (employment insurance reported as disciplinary dismissal)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae344 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome: (1) The worker in this case argued that his/her expression of intent to resign was not genuine, but in light of the fact that on 23 June 2025 he/she personally drafted and submitted to the employer a letter of resignation and a statement of reasons for retirement citing personal circumstances, and that at the hearing before our Commission on 19 November 2025 he/she stated that there was no evidentiary material to prove that the expression of intent was not genuine, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal arose from a situation where, despite the worker having personally submitted a letter of resignation, he/she applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal on the grounds that the situation in substance constituted a dismissal. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer after comprehensively considering the circumstances surrounding the worker’s resignation, the statements made at the Commission hearing, and the contents of the employment insurance loss-of-coverage report. Labor Law Firm Law& considers it important, in disputes of this kind, to pay close attention to where the boundary lies between resignation and dismissal, and on what criteria the Labor Relations Commission bases its determinations.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are whether, after a worker has submitted in his/her own handwriting a letter of resignation and a statement of reasons for retirement citing “personal circumstances,” the worker may later retract that and claim that the intent to resign was not genuine, and whether the mere fact that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as “disciplinary dismissal” is sufficient in itself to establish unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, in light of the fact that on 23 June 2025 the worker personally drafted and submitted to the employer a letter of resignation and a statement of reasons for retirement citing personal circumstances, that at the hearing on 19 November 2025 before our Commission the worker stated that there was no evidentiary material to prove that the expression of intent was not genuine, and that even if the employer reported the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage as disciplinary dismissal, that fact alone does not automatically establish the existence of a dismissal,
it must be viewed that the worker, having judged it to be the best course of action in the circumstances at the time, submitted the letter of resignation of his/her own free will; that the worker him/herself stated at the hearing that “there was no disciplinary dismissal”; and that there were no circumstances confirming that the worker raised an objection to disciplinary dismissal when requesting correction of the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage, among other factors.
On this basis, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and therefore the worker’s claim that he/she was unfairly dismissed could not be accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Once a worker has handwritten and submitted a letter of resignation, in order to later argue that the intent to resign was not genuine, he/she must present concrete circumstances such as coercion, threats, or merely formal submission, together with evidence supporting those circumstances. In addition, the fact that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as “disciplinary dismissal” does not automatically render the case an unfair dismissal. It is therefore necessary to build an evidentiary strategy focusing on whether there was in fact an expression of intent to dismiss, and whether there were defects in the circumstances under which the letter of resignation was submitted.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the worker has personally drafted and submitted a letter of resignation, it is important to systematically preserve the circumstances of its preparation, the conversations held at the time, and the originals of the letter of resignation and the statement of reasons for retirement. In addition, the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage should be reported accurately in accordance with the actual reason for termination (voluntary resignation, mutual agreement, disciplinary dismissal, etc.), and if there is any error, the correction procedure should be carried out promptly to prevent disputes with the worker.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The worker in this case argues that his/her expression of intent to resign was not genuine. However, in light of the fact that on 23 June 2025 he/she personally drafted and submitted to the employer a letter of resignation and a statement of reasons for retirement citing personal circumstances, and that at the hearing before our Commission on 19 November 2025 he/she stated that there was no evidentiary material to prove that the expression of intent was not genuine, it appears that he/she judged resignation to be the best option in the circumstances at the time and submitted the letter of resignation of his/her own free will. (2) The worker in this case claims that the cause of termination of the employment relationship on 23 June 2025 was a recommended resignation by mutual agreement of the parties, but also argues that he/she was dismissed by the employer in this case because the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as disciplinary dismissal. However, in light of the facts that at the hearing before our Commission on 19 November 2025 the worker stated that there was no disciplinary dismissal, that the fact that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as disciplinary dismissal alone is insufficient to confirm the fact of dismissal, that there is no confirmation that the worker applied to the employer in this case for correction of the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage while raising an objection to disciplinary dismissal, and that he/she submitted the letter of resignation, etc. of his/her own free will, it is difficult to accept the worker’s claim that there was an unfair dismissal on 23 June 2025.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) The worker in this case argues that his/her expression of intent to resign was not genuine. However, in light of the fact that on 23 June 2025 he/she personally drafted and submitted to the employer a letter of resignation and a statement of reasons for retirement citing personal circumstances, and that at the hearing before our Commission on 19 November 2025 he/she stated that there was no evidentiary material to prove that the expression of intent was not genuine, it appears that he/she judged resignation to be the best option in the circumstances at the time and submitted the letter of resignation of his/her own free will. (2) The worker in this case claims that the cause of termination of the employment relationship on 23 June 2025 was a recommended resignation by mutual agreement of the parties, but also argues that he/she was dismissed by the employer in this case because the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as disciplinary dismissal. However, in light of the facts that at the hearing before our Commission on 19 November 2025 the worker stated that there was no disciplinary dismissal, that the fact that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as disciplinary dismissal alone is insufficient to confirm the fact of dismissal, that there is no confirmation that the worker applied to the employer in this case for correction of the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage while raising an objection to disciplinary dismissal, and that he/she submitted the letter of resignation, etc. of his/her own free will, it is difficult to accept the worker’s claim that there was an unfair dismissal on 23 June 2025. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning expression of intent to resign (resignation remarks made by telephone call)”
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning dismissal of application (non-appearance at hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning non-formation of hiring confirmation (absence of offer letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, genuineness of letter of resignation (employment insurance reported as disciplinary dismissal), 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, “Unfair dismissal decision concerning disciplinary measure (team leader leaving workplace without permission),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to genuineness of letter of resignation (employment insurance reported as disciplinary dismissal) can be found together in the “List of decisions related to genuineness of letter of resignation (employment insurance reported as disciplinary dismissal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision concerning “genuineness of letter of resignation (employment insurance reported as disciplinary dismissal)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae344 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.19
- Summary of outcome: (1) The worker in this case argued that his/her expression of intent to resign was not genuine, but in light of the fact that on 23 June 2025 he/she personally drafted and submitted to the employer a letter of resignation and a statement of reasons for retirement citing personal circumstances, and that at the hearing before our Commission on 19 November 2025 he/she stated that there was no evidentiary material to prove that the expression of intent was not genuine, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal arose from a situation where, despite the worker having personally submitted a letter of resignation, he/she applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal on the grounds that the situation in substance constituted a dismissal. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer after comprehensively considering the circumstances surrounding the worker’s resignation, the statements made at the Commission hearing, and the contents of the employment insurance loss-of-coverage report. Labor Law Firm Law& considers it important, in disputes of this kind, to pay close attention to where the boundary lies between resignation and dismissal, and on what criteria the Labor Relations Commission bases its determinations.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are whether, after a worker has submitted in his/her own handwriting a letter of resignation and a statement of reasons for retirement citing “personal circumstances,” the worker may later retract that and claim that the intent to resign was not genuine, and whether the mere fact that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as “disciplinary dismissal” is sufficient in itself to establish unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, in light of the fact that on 23 June 2025 the worker personally drafted and submitted to the employer a letter of resignation and a statement of reasons for retirement citing personal circumstances, that at the hearing on 19 November 2025 before our Commission the worker stated that there was no evidentiary material to prove that the expression of intent was not genuine, and that even if the employer reported the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage as disciplinary dismissal, that fact alone does not automatically establish the existence of a dismissal,
it must be viewed that the worker, having judged it to be the best course of action in the circumstances at the time, submitted the letter of resignation of his/her own free will; that the worker him/herself stated at the hearing that “there was no disciplinary dismissal”; and that there were no circumstances confirming that the worker raised an objection to disciplinary dismissal when requesting correction of the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage, among other factors.
On this basis, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and therefore the worker’s claim that he/she was unfairly dismissed could not be accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Once a worker has handwritten and submitted a letter of resignation, in order to later argue that the intent to resign was not genuine, he/she must present concrete circumstances such as coercion, threats, or merely formal submission, together with evidence supporting those circumstances. In addition, the fact that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as “disciplinary dismissal” does not automatically render the case an unfair dismissal. It is therefore necessary to build an evidentiary strategy focusing on whether there was in fact an expression of intent to dismiss, and whether there were defects in the circumstances under which the letter of resignation was submitted.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where the worker has personally drafted and submitted a letter of resignation, it is important to systematically preserve the circumstances of its preparation, the conversations held at the time, and the originals of the letter of resignation and the statement of reasons for retirement. In addition, the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage should be reported accurately in accordance with the actual reason for termination (voluntary resignation, mutual agreement, disciplinary dismissal, etc.), and if there is any error, the correction procedure should be carried out promptly to prevent disputes with the worker.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The worker in this case argues that his/her expression of intent to resign was not genuine. However, in light of the fact that on 23 June 2025 he/she personally drafted and submitted to the employer a letter of resignation and a statement of reasons for retirement citing personal circumstances, and that at the hearing before our Commission on 19 November 2025 he/she stated that there was no evidentiary material to prove that the expression of intent was not genuine, it appears that he/she judged resignation to be the best option in the circumstances at the time and submitted the letter of resignation of his/her own free will. (2) The worker in this case claims that the cause of termination of the employment relationship on 23 June 2025 was a recommended resignation by mutual agreement of the parties, but also argues that he/she was dismissed by the employer in this case because the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as disciplinary dismissal. However, in light of the facts that at the hearing before our Commission on 19 November 2025 the worker stated that there was no disciplinary dismissal, that the fact that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as disciplinary dismissal alone is insufficient to confirm the fact of dismissal, that there is no confirmation that the worker applied to the employer in this case for correction of the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage while raising an objection to disciplinary dismissal, and that he/she submitted the letter of resignation, etc. of his/her own free will, it is difficult to accept the worker’s claim that there was an unfair dismissal on 23 June 2025.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) The worker in this case argues that his/her expression of intent to resign was not genuine. However, in light of the fact that on 23 June 2025 he/she personally drafted and submitted to the employer a letter of resignation and a statement of reasons for retirement citing personal circumstances, and that at the hearing before our Commission on 19 November 2025 he/she stated that there was no evidentiary material to prove that the expression of intent was not genuine, it appears that he/she judged resignation to be the best option in the circumstances at the time and submitted the letter of resignation of his/her own free will. (2) The worker in this case claims that the cause of termination of the employment relationship on 23 June 2025 was a recommended resignation by mutual agreement of the parties, but also argues that he/she was dismissed by the employer in this case because the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as disciplinary dismissal. However, in light of the facts that at the hearing before our Commission on 19 November 2025 the worker stated that there was no disciplinary dismissal, that the fact that the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage was reported as disciplinary dismissal alone is insufficient to confirm the fact of dismissal, that there is no confirmation that the worker applied to the employer in this case for correction of the reason for loss of employment insurance coverage while raising an objection to disciplinary dismissal, and that he/she submitted the letter of resignation, etc. of his/her own free will, it is difficult to accept the worker’s claim that there was an unfair dismissal on 23 June 2025. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning expression of intent to resign (resignation remarks made by telephone call)”
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning dismissal of application (non-appearance at hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair dismissal decision concerning non-formation of hiring confirmation (absence of offer letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, genuineness of letter of resignation (employment insurance reported as disciplinary dismissal), 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, “Unfair dismissal decision concerning disciplinary measure (team leader leaving workplace without permission),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to genuineness of letter of resignation (employment insurance reported as disciplinary dismissal) can be found together in the “List of decisions related to genuineness of letter of resignation (employment insurance reported as disciplinary dismissal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
