Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Letter of Resignation Expressing Intent (Extension of Probation)” (Unfair Dismissal 488)
- Date2026/05/28 04:04
- Read 63
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “letter of resignation expressing intent (extension of probation).”
Adjudicating Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 9 ○ ○ ○
Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Date of Decision: 2026.03.19 · Case Result: Dismissed
Key Issue Summary: ① 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee who was working under an extended probationary period and, after being notified of the possibility that the probation would be terminated due to insufficient work performance, submitted a letter of resignation stating “resignation upon the company’s recommendation,” and then claimed unfair dismissal. The employee argued before the Labor Relations Commission that the resignation was not genuine because the letter was submitted under the employer’s explanation that unemployment benefits could be received, leaving the employee with no real choice, and that in substance the separation should be regarded as a dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a letter of resignation submitted after an extension of the probationary period, based on the employer’s recommendation and guidance regarding unemployment benefits, constitutes a voluntary resignation/termination by mutual agreement based on the employee’s true intent, or whether it should be deemed a unilateral dismissal by the employer amounting to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found as follows: After the first probationary evaluation, the employer requested an extension of the probationary period on the ground that “an additional probationary period is needed for work adaptation and evaluation,” and the employee agreed and signed a consent form for the extension of the probationary period. While the employer had already informed the employee through interviews that the probation might be terminated due to insufficient work performance, the employee voluntarily submitted a letter of resignation stating the reason for resignation as “resignation upon the company’s recommendation” and specifying a concrete desired date of resignation, and this letter of resignation was approved and accepted on the same day. There was a lack of objective evidence to support the claim that the employee’s intent to resign was conditional upon receiving unemployment benefits, and in light of the circumstances at the time, it appeared that the employee chose to resign in the expectation of being able to receive unemployment benefits, rather than that the expression of intent was devoid of genuine will.
Furthermore, it was difficult to find that the employer had a legal duty to accurately inform the employee of the possibility of receiving unemployment benefits, and there was no evidence that the employer knowingly misled the employee by falsely stating that benefits would be available despite knowing they would not. Taking all of these circumstances into account, the Commission held that the employment relationship was terminated by the concurrence of the parties’ intentions through the employee’s submission of the letter of resignation and the employer’s acceptance thereof, and that there was no dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee submits a letter of resignation, the default rule under labor law is to regard the separation as a “resignation based on the employee’s intent.” Therefore, in order to later contest the separation as an unfair dismissal, the employee must prove with specific evidence that the resignation was not based on genuine intent due to coercion or threats, deception, a demand for mass submission of resignation letters, or similar circumstances in the resignation process. If a letter of resignation is submitted solely in the expectation of being able to receive unemployment benefits, that choice will often be evaluated as a reasonable decision by the employee. Accordingly, before resigning, employees should thoroughly review the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits and the possibility of future disputes through the Employment Center or experts (e.g., Labor Law Firm Law&).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, when seeking to terminate the employment relationship during the probationary period due to insufficient work performance, it is important to keep objective records of the contents of the probationary evaluation, the course of interviews, and the reasons for extending the probationary period, even if the separation is not a redundancy dismissal. In addition, to support the position that the letter of resignation was submitted voluntarily, the company should have the employee personally write down the specific desired date and reason for resignation, and retain interview records or similar materials that can prove that the letter was submitted without coercion or improper inducement. These records will be advantageous in any future unfair dismissal dispute.
As in this case, when determining whether an unfair dismissal has occurred, the Labor Relations Commission does not stop at the formal question of whether a letter of resignation was submitted or a redundancy dismissal notice was issued. Rather, it comprehensively examines the motivation and background of the resignation, the content of any explanations regarding unemployment benefits, and whether there was any deception or coercion by the employer. In similar situations, both employees and employers should carefully design the form and procedure of resignation or dismissal and systematically organize related materials in order to increase the likelihood of a favorable decision from the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) After joining the company on 2025.05.19, the employee underwent a three‑month probationary period. Following the employer’s first probationary evaluation, the employee signed a consent form extending the probationary period at the employer’s request that “an additional probationary period is needed for work adaptation and evaluation.”
(2) On 2025.10.02, the employer informed the employee in an interview that the probation was expected to be terminated due to insufficient work performance. On 2025.10.13, the employee submitted a letter of resignation stating the reason for resignation as “resignation upon the company’s recommendation” and specifying 2025.11.18 as the desired date of resignation, and this letter of resignation was approved and accepted on the same day.
(3) There was insufficient basis to find that the employee’s submission of the letter of resignation was conditional upon receiving unemployment benefits, and if unemployment benefits could be received after resignation, the submission of the letter of resignation appeared to be based on the judgment that it was the best option under the circumstances at the time. It was therefore difficult to regard the expression of intent as lacking genuine will.
(4) It was difficult to find that the employer had a duty to truthfully notify the employee of the possibility of receiving unemployment benefits, and there was no evidence that the employer deceived the employee despite knowing that the employee would in fact be unable to receive unemployment benefits. Thus, it was difficult to conclude that there had been any deceptive conduct by the employer.
In light of all of the above, the employment relationship was terminated by the concurrence of the parties’ intentions through the employee’s submission of the letter of resignation and the employer’s acceptance thereof, and there was therefore no dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(1) After joining the company on 2025.05.19, the employee underwent a three‑month probationary period. Following the employer’s first probationary evaluation, the employee signed a consent form extending the probationary period at the employer’s request that “an additional probationary period is needed for work adaptation and evaluation.”
(2) On 2025.10.02, the employer informed the employee in an interview that the probation was expected to be terminated due to insufficient work performance. On 2025.10.13, the employee submitted a letter of resignation stating the reason for resignation as “resignation upon the company’s recommendation” and specifying 2025.11.18 as the desired date of resignation, and this letter of resignation was approved and accepted on the same day.
(3) There was insufficient basis to find that the employee’s submission of the letter of resignation was conditional upon receiving unemployment benefits, and if unemployment benefits could be received after resignation, the submission of the letter of resignation appeared to be based on the judgment that it was the best option under the circumstances at the time. It was therefore difficult to regard the expression of intent as lacking genuine will.
(4) It was difficult to find that the employer had a duty to truthfully notify the employee of the possibility of receiving unemployment benefits, and there was no evidence that the employer deceived the employee despite knowing that the employee would in fact be unable to receive unemployment benefits. Thus, it was difficult to conclude that there had been any deceptive conduct by the employer.
Taking all of these circumstances together, the Commission held that the employment relationship was terminated by the concurrence of the parties’ intentions through the employee’s submission of the letter of resignation and the employer’s acceptance thereof, and that there was therefore no dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, letter of resignation expressing intent (extension of probation), dismissal during probation, performance evaluation · poor performance, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Dismissal of Petition (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to letters of resignation expressing intent (extension of probation) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Letters of Resignation Expressing Intent (Extension of Probation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “letter of resignation expressing intent (extension of probation).”
Adjudicating Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 9 ○ ○ ○
Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Date of Decision: 2026.03.19 · Case Result: Dismissed
Key Issue Summary: ① 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee who was working under an extended probationary period and, after being notified of the possibility that the probation would be terminated due to insufficient work performance, submitted a letter of resignation stating “resignation upon the company’s recommendation,” and then claimed unfair dismissal. The employee argued before the Labor Relations Commission that the resignation was not genuine because the letter was submitted under the employer’s explanation that unemployment benefits could be received, leaving the employee with no real choice, and that in substance the separation should be regarded as a dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a letter of resignation submitted after an extension of the probationary period, based on the employer’s recommendation and guidance regarding unemployment benefits, constitutes a voluntary resignation/termination by mutual agreement based on the employee’s true intent, or whether it should be deemed a unilateral dismissal by the employer amounting to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found as follows: After the first probationary evaluation, the employer requested an extension of the probationary period on the ground that “an additional probationary period is needed for work adaptation and evaluation,” and the employee agreed and signed a consent form for the extension of the probationary period. While the employer had already informed the employee through interviews that the probation might be terminated due to insufficient work performance, the employee voluntarily submitted a letter of resignation stating the reason for resignation as “resignation upon the company’s recommendation” and specifying a concrete desired date of resignation, and this letter of resignation was approved and accepted on the same day. There was a lack of objective evidence to support the claim that the employee’s intent to resign was conditional upon receiving unemployment benefits, and in light of the circumstances at the time, it appeared that the employee chose to resign in the expectation of being able to receive unemployment benefits, rather than that the expression of intent was devoid of genuine will.
Furthermore, it was difficult to find that the employer had a legal duty to accurately inform the employee of the possibility of receiving unemployment benefits, and there was no evidence that the employer knowingly misled the employee by falsely stating that benefits would be available despite knowing they would not. Taking all of these circumstances into account, the Commission held that the employment relationship was terminated by the concurrence of the parties’ intentions through the employee’s submission of the letter of resignation and the employer’s acceptance thereof, and that there was no dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee submits a letter of resignation, the default rule under labor law is to regard the separation as a “resignation based on the employee’s intent.” Therefore, in order to later contest the separation as an unfair dismissal, the employee must prove with specific evidence that the resignation was not based on genuine intent due to coercion or threats, deception, a demand for mass submission of resignation letters, or similar circumstances in the resignation process. If a letter of resignation is submitted solely in the expectation of being able to receive unemployment benefits, that choice will often be evaluated as a reasonable decision by the employee. Accordingly, before resigning, employees should thoroughly review the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits and the possibility of future disputes through the Employment Center or experts (e.g., Labor Law Firm Law&).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, when seeking to terminate the employment relationship during the probationary period due to insufficient work performance, it is important to keep objective records of the contents of the probationary evaluation, the course of interviews, and the reasons for extending the probationary period, even if the separation is not a redundancy dismissal. In addition, to support the position that the letter of resignation was submitted voluntarily, the company should have the employee personally write down the specific desired date and reason for resignation, and retain interview records or similar materials that can prove that the letter was submitted without coercion or improper inducement. These records will be advantageous in any future unfair dismissal dispute.
As in this case, when determining whether an unfair dismissal has occurred, the Labor Relations Commission does not stop at the formal question of whether a letter of resignation was submitted or a redundancy dismissal notice was issued. Rather, it comprehensively examines the motivation and background of the resignation, the content of any explanations regarding unemployment benefits, and whether there was any deception or coercion by the employer. In similar situations, both employees and employers should carefully design the form and procedure of resignation or dismissal and systematically organize related materials in order to increase the likelihood of a favorable decision from the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) After joining the company on 2025.05.19, the employee underwent a three‑month probationary period. Following the employer’s first probationary evaluation, the employee signed a consent form extending the probationary period at the employer’s request that “an additional probationary period is needed for work adaptation and evaluation.”
(2) On 2025.10.02, the employer informed the employee in an interview that the probation was expected to be terminated due to insufficient work performance. On 2025.10.13, the employee submitted a letter of resignation stating the reason for resignation as “resignation upon the company’s recommendation” and specifying 2025.11.18 as the desired date of resignation, and this letter of resignation was approved and accepted on the same day.
(3) There was insufficient basis to find that the employee’s submission of the letter of resignation was conditional upon receiving unemployment benefits, and if unemployment benefits could be received after resignation, the submission of the letter of resignation appeared to be based on the judgment that it was the best option under the circumstances at the time. It was therefore difficult to regard the expression of intent as lacking genuine will.
(4) It was difficult to find that the employer had a duty to truthfully notify the employee of the possibility of receiving unemployment benefits, and there was no evidence that the employer deceived the employee despite knowing that the employee would in fact be unable to receive unemployment benefits. Thus, it was difficult to conclude that there had been any deceptive conduct by the employer.
In light of all of the above, the employment relationship was terminated by the concurrence of the parties’ intentions through the employee’s submission of the letter of resignation and the employer’s acceptance thereof, and there was therefore no dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(1) After joining the company on 2025.05.19, the employee underwent a three‑month probationary period. Following the employer’s first probationary evaluation, the employee signed a consent form extending the probationary period at the employer’s request that “an additional probationary period is needed for work adaptation and evaluation.”
(2) On 2025.10.02, the employer informed the employee in an interview that the probation was expected to be terminated due to insufficient work performance. On 2025.10.13, the employee submitted a letter of resignation stating the reason for resignation as “resignation upon the company’s recommendation” and specifying 2025.11.18 as the desired date of resignation, and this letter of resignation was approved and accepted on the same day.
(3) There was insufficient basis to find that the employee’s submission of the letter of resignation was conditional upon receiving unemployment benefits, and if unemployment benefits could be received after resignation, the submission of the letter of resignation appeared to be based on the judgment that it was the best option under the circumstances at the time. It was therefore difficult to regard the expression of intent as lacking genuine will.
(4) It was difficult to find that the employer had a duty to truthfully notify the employee of the possibility of receiving unemployment benefits, and there was no evidence that the employer deceived the employee despite knowing that the employee would in fact be unable to receive unemployment benefits. Thus, it was difficult to conclude that there had been any deceptive conduct by the employer.
Taking all of these circumstances together, the Commission held that the employment relationship was terminated by the concurrence of the parties’ intentions through the employee’s submission of the letter of resignation and the employer’s acceptance thereof, and that there was therefore no dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, letter of resignation expressing intent (extension of probation), dismissal during probation, performance evaluation · poor performance, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Dismissal of Petition (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to letters of resignation expressing intent (extension of probation) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Letters of Resignation Expressing Intent (Extension of Probation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
