Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Mutual Termination (Resignation Notice via KakaoTalk)’ and Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 517)
- Date2026/07/03 04:16
- Read 30
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “mutual termination (resignation notice via KakaoTalk).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2026Buhae1115 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-06-05 · Result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: … the employee expressed an intention to work until 31 December 2025 and the employer’s acceptance of that intention is confirmed; (4) on 28 December 2025, the employee sent the employer a message stating, “I hereby notify you that it is impossible to maintain an employment relationship with your company any longer.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer. The employee first expressed an intention to work until 31 December 2025, then on 28 December 2025 sent a message stating, “I hereby notify you that it is impossible to maintain an employment relationship with your company any longer,” and did not report to work from the following day. Based on these circumstances, the Commission examined whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted an unfair dismissal, or a resignation by mutual agreement (mutual termination) between the employee and the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee expresses an intention to resign via KakaoTalk or similar messaging service and stops reporting to work, a mutual termination between the employee and the employer can be deemed to have been formed—and thus the case does not constitute unfair dismissal—even in the absence of an original hard-copy resignation letter.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee expressed an intention to work until 31 December 2025 and the employer accepted this; that thereafter the employee again notified the employer that “it is no longer possible to maintain the employment relationship” and in fact did not report to work; and that it is difficult to deny the formation of a mutual termination solely on the ground that the employee did not comply with the employer’s request to submit a resignation letter. In light of these and other circumstances,
the Commission held that the termination at issue did not constitute a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent, but rather a mutual termination formed by the concurrence of the intentions of the employee and the employer, and therefore did not amount to unfair dismissal.
The Labor Relations Commission reaffirmed that, in distinguishing whether the termination of an employment relationship is a dismissal, a resignation, or a mutual termination, it must comprehensively consider not only the formal existence of a written resignation but also the specific content of the employee’s expression of intent, the course of communications with the employer, and whether the employee continued to report to work thereafter.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee clearly expresses, via text message or messenger, an intention to the effect that “it is no longer possible to maintain the employment relationship” and actually stops reporting to work, the situation may be evaluated as a mutual termination or resignation even without a separate written resignation letter, and a claim of unfair dismissal may not be upheld. Because employees often change their minds after impulsively notifying their intention to resign, you should carefully decide whether and when to resign. If you have already expressed an intention to resign, you should consult a professional (e.g., Labor Law Firm Law&) regarding whether and how that intention can be withdrawn.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where an employee expresses an intention to resign verbally or via message and then stops reporting to work, it is important to preserve conversation logs, attendance records, and other materials so that the content and background of such events can be objectively proven. Even if a written resignation has not been submitted, systematically organizing the employee’s explicit expression of intent, the employer’s acceptance thereof, and the subsequent cessation of attendance can help demonstrate before the Labor Relations Commission that the case is a mutual termination rather than an unfair dismissal. While the Labor Relations Commission and the courts take a strict view of “formal resignations coerced to avoid dismissal,” they tend to recognize mutual termination in cases like this one, where the employee’s voluntary expression of intent and its implementation are clear. Employers should therefore manage related evidence thoroughly in the course of HR and labor management.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… the employee expressed an intention to work until 31 December 2025 and the employer’s acceptance of that intention is confirmed; (4) on 28 December 2025, the employee sent the employer a message stating, “I hereby notify you that it is impossible to maintain an employment relationship with your company any longer,” and did not report to work from the following day; (5) although the employer did not receive a written resignation from the employee, it is difficult to regard the mere fact that the employee did not comply with the employer’s request to submit a resignation letter as grounds to deny the formation of a mutual termination. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore there is no …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… the employee expressed an intention to work until 31 December 2025 and the employer’s acceptance of that intention is confirmed; (4) on 28 December 2025, the employee sent the employer a message stating, “I hereby notify you that it is impossible to maintain an employment relationship with your company any longer,” and did not report to work from the following day; (5) although the employer did not receive a written resignation from the employee, it is difficult to regard the mere fact that the employee did not comply with the employer’s request to submit a resignation letter as grounds to deny the formation of a mutual termination. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore there is no … /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark via Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, mutual termination (resignation notice via KakaoTalk), 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Altercation Involving Grabbing a Colleague by the Collar)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to mutual termination (resignation notice via KakaoTalk) can be found under “List of Decisions on Mutual Termination (Resignation Notice via KakaoTalk).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2026Buhae1115 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-06-05 · Result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: … the employee expressed an intention to work until 31 December 2025 and the employer’s acceptance of that intention is confirmed; (4) on 28 December 2025, the employee sent the employer a message stating, “I hereby notify you that it is impossible to maintain an employment relationship with your company any longer.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the employer. The employee first expressed an intention to work until 31 December 2025, then on 28 December 2025 sent a message stating, “I hereby notify you that it is impossible to maintain an employment relationship with your company any longer,” and did not report to work from the following day. Based on these circumstances, the Commission examined whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted an unfair dismissal, or a resignation by mutual agreement (mutual termination) between the employee and the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee expresses an intention to resign via KakaoTalk or similar messaging service and stops reporting to work, a mutual termination between the employee and the employer can be deemed to have been formed—and thus the case does not constitute unfair dismissal—even in the absence of an original hard-copy resignation letter.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee expressed an intention to work until 31 December 2025 and the employer accepted this; that thereafter the employee again notified the employer that “it is no longer possible to maintain the employment relationship” and in fact did not report to work; and that it is difficult to deny the formation of a mutual termination solely on the ground that the employee did not comply with the employer’s request to submit a resignation letter. In light of these and other circumstances,
the Commission held that the termination at issue did not constitute a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent, but rather a mutual termination formed by the concurrence of the intentions of the employee and the employer, and therefore did not amount to unfair dismissal.
The Labor Relations Commission reaffirmed that, in distinguishing whether the termination of an employment relationship is a dismissal, a resignation, or a mutual termination, it must comprehensively consider not only the formal existence of a written resignation but also the specific content of the employee’s expression of intent, the course of communications with the employer, and whether the employee continued to report to work thereafter.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee clearly expresses, via text message or messenger, an intention to the effect that “it is no longer possible to maintain the employment relationship” and actually stops reporting to work, the situation may be evaluated as a mutual termination or resignation even without a separate written resignation letter, and a claim of unfair dismissal may not be upheld. Because employees often change their minds after impulsively notifying their intention to resign, you should carefully decide whether and when to resign. If you have already expressed an intention to resign, you should consult a professional (e.g., Labor Law Firm Law&) regarding whether and how that intention can be withdrawn.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even where an employee expresses an intention to resign verbally or via message and then stops reporting to work, it is important to preserve conversation logs, attendance records, and other materials so that the content and background of such events can be objectively proven. Even if a written resignation has not been submitted, systematically organizing the employee’s explicit expression of intent, the employer’s acceptance thereof, and the subsequent cessation of attendance can help demonstrate before the Labor Relations Commission that the case is a mutual termination rather than an unfair dismissal. While the Labor Relations Commission and the courts take a strict view of “formal resignations coerced to avoid dismissal,” they tend to recognize mutual termination in cases like this one, where the employee’s voluntary expression of intent and its implementation are clear. Employers should therefore manage related evidence thoroughly in the course of HR and labor management.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… the employee expressed an intention to work until 31 December 2025 and the employer’s acceptance of that intention is confirmed; (4) on 28 December 2025, the employee sent the employer a message stating, “I hereby notify you that it is impossible to maintain an employment relationship with your company any longer,” and did not report to work from the following day; (5) although the employer did not receive a written resignation from the employee, it is difficult to regard the mere fact that the employee did not comply with the employer’s request to submit a resignation letter as grounds to deny the formation of a mutual termination. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore there is no …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… the employee expressed an intention to work until 31 December 2025 and the employer’s acceptance of that intention is confirmed; (4) on 28 December 2025, the employee sent the employer a message stating, “I hereby notify you that it is impossible to maintain an employment relationship with your company any longer,” and did not report to work from the following day; (5) although the employer did not receive a written resignation from the employee, it is difficult to regard the mere fact that the employee did not comply with the employer’s request to submit a resignation letter as grounds to deny the formation of a mutual termination. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore there is no … /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark via Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, mutual termination (resignation notice via KakaoTalk), 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Altercation Involving Grabbing a Colleague by the Collar)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to mutual termination (resignation notice via KakaoTalk) can be found under “List of Decisions on Mutual Termination (Resignation Notice via KakaoTalk).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
