Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Acceptance of Withdrawal of Resignation (Tearing Up Resignation Letter)” (Unfair Dismissal 520)
- Date2026/07/04 04:16
- Read 18
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a decision by the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission in a matter where an employee submitted a resignation letter, immediately expressed an intention to withdraw it, and subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The employee argued that the employer treated the resignation as a fait accompli and, in the course of changing the working pattern and urging the employee to report to work, effectively took measures amounting to unfair dismissal.
The Commission reviewed, in a comprehensive manner, the course of the interviews and the circumstances surrounding the payment of severance pay, in order to determine whether the withdrawal of the resignation had been accepted, whether unfair dismissal was established, and whether the change in working pattern gave rise to any remedial interest.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where an employee immediately retracts a submitted resignation letter, the employer can be deemed to have accepted the withdrawal of the resignation, and whether the subsequent change in working pattern, the urging to report to work, and the employee’s failure to report to work constitute unfair dismissal or a personnel measure giving rise to a remedial interest.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that, although the employee submitted a resignation letter on 3 April 2026 and immediately retracted it by taking back the submitted resignation letter without the employer’s consent and tearing it up, the parties later agreed in an interview that the employee would continue working until 1 May 2026. The employer repeatedly urged the employee to report to work and calculated and paid severance pay on the premise of continuous service up to 1 May 2026.
Taking these circumstances together, the panel held that the withdrawal of the resignation had, in substance, been accepted by the employer. As a result, it was difficult to view the resignation agreement between the parties as having remained validly in force to the end, and the employment relationship was deemed to have been maintained until 1 May. Accordingly, it was difficult to find that there had been any separate act of dismissal prior to that date, and the claim of unfair dismissal was not upheld.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee, acting on emotion, submits a resignation letter and then wishes to withdraw it immediately, it is advisable to clearly express the intention to withdraw and to leave a written record—via written document, email, messenger, etc.—of any agreement reached in the interview process regarding the end date of service and whether continuous employment will be maintained.
Furthermore, where the employer urges the employee to report to work or calculates and pays severance pay on the premise of continuous service up to a particular point in time, such circumstances can serve as important evidence supporting acceptance of the withdrawal of resignation and the continued existence of the employment relationship. Relevant materials should therefore be systematically preserved.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to keep clear records regarding the employee’s expression of intent to resign and any withdrawal thereof—specifically, when and in what terms the resignation was accepted, and how the withdrawal of that intention was handled. The results of interviews should be documented in confirmations or emails.
In addition, after accepting the withdrawal of resignation, the employer should clearly inform the employee of whether the employment relationship will continue, as well as of the future schedule and working conditions, so that subsequent measures such as urging the employee to report to work, settlement of severance pay, and changes in working pattern are not misconstrued as dismissal or redundancy.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. (Primary claim) Whether a dismissal existed and, if so, whether it was justified (grounds and procedure), and whether the change in working pattern in this case gives rise to a remedial interest.
The employee submitted a resignation letter on 3 April 2026 and immediately retracted it by taking back the submitted resignation letter without the employer’s consent and tearing it up. However, in a subsequent interview, the parties agreed that the employee would continue working until 1 May 2026, and although the employee did not report to work despite the employer’s repeated urgings, the employer paid severance pay on the premise of continuous service up to 1 May 2026.
In light of these circumstances taken together, it is reasonable to view that the parties accepted the withdrawal of the resignation, and therefore no dismissal exists. Accordingly, …
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
a. (Primary claim) Whether a dismissal existed and, if so, whether it was justified (grounds and procedure), and whether the change in working pattern in this case gives rise to a remedial interest.
The employee submitted a resignation letter on 3 April 2026 and immediately retracted it by taking back the submitted resignation letter without the employer’s consent and tearing it up. However, in a subsequent interview, the parties agreed that the employee would continue working until 1 May 2026, and although the employee did not report to work despite the employer’s repeated urgings, the employer paid severance pay on the premise of continuous service up to 1 May 2026.
In light of these circumstances taken together, it is reasonable to view that the parties accepted the withdrawal of the resignation, and therefore no dismissal exists. Accordingly, … /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First-instance Decision Upheld
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer Under Job Rotation System)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, acceptance of withdrawal of resignation (tearing up resignation letter), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Repeat Sexual Harassment at Company Dinner),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to acceptance of withdrawal of resignation (tearing up resignation letter) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Acceptance of Withdrawal of Resignation (Tearing Up Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a decision by the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission in a matter where an employee submitted a resignation letter, immediately expressed an intention to withdraw it, and subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The employee argued that the employer treated the resignation as a fait accompli and, in the course of changing the working pattern and urging the employee to report to work, effectively took measures amounting to unfair dismissal.
The Commission reviewed, in a comprehensive manner, the course of the interviews and the circumstances surrounding the payment of severance pay, in order to determine whether the withdrawal of the resignation had been accepted, whether unfair dismissal was established, and whether the change in working pattern gave rise to any remedial interest.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where an employee immediately retracts a submitted resignation letter, the employer can be deemed to have accepted the withdrawal of the resignation, and whether the subsequent change in working pattern, the urging to report to work, and the employee’s failure to report to work constitute unfair dismissal or a personnel measure giving rise to a remedial interest.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that, although the employee submitted a resignation letter on 3 April 2026 and immediately retracted it by taking back the submitted resignation letter without the employer’s consent and tearing it up, the parties later agreed in an interview that the employee would continue working until 1 May 2026. The employer repeatedly urged the employee to report to work and calculated and paid severance pay on the premise of continuous service up to 1 May 2026.
Taking these circumstances together, the panel held that the withdrawal of the resignation had, in substance, been accepted by the employer. As a result, it was difficult to view the resignation agreement between the parties as having remained validly in force to the end, and the employment relationship was deemed to have been maintained until 1 May. Accordingly, it was difficult to find that there had been any separate act of dismissal prior to that date, and the claim of unfair dismissal was not upheld.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee, acting on emotion, submits a resignation letter and then wishes to withdraw it immediately, it is advisable to clearly express the intention to withdraw and to leave a written record—via written document, email, messenger, etc.—of any agreement reached in the interview process regarding the end date of service and whether continuous employment will be maintained.
Furthermore, where the employer urges the employee to report to work or calculates and pays severance pay on the premise of continuous service up to a particular point in time, such circumstances can serve as important evidence supporting acceptance of the withdrawal of resignation and the continued existence of the employment relationship. Relevant materials should therefore be systematically preserved.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to keep clear records regarding the employee’s expression of intent to resign and any withdrawal thereof—specifically, when and in what terms the resignation was accepted, and how the withdrawal of that intention was handled. The results of interviews should be documented in confirmations or emails.
In addition, after accepting the withdrawal of resignation, the employer should clearly inform the employee of whether the employment relationship will continue, as well as of the future schedule and working conditions, so that subsequent measures such as urging the employee to report to work, settlement of severance pay, and changes in working pattern are not misconstrued as dismissal or redundancy.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. (Primary claim) Whether a dismissal existed and, if so, whether it was justified (grounds and procedure), and whether the change in working pattern in this case gives rise to a remedial interest.
The employee submitted a resignation letter on 3 April 2026 and immediately retracted it by taking back the submitted resignation letter without the employer’s consent and tearing it up. However, in a subsequent interview, the parties agreed that the employee would continue working until 1 May 2026, and although the employee did not report to work despite the employer’s repeated urgings, the employer paid severance pay on the premise of continuous service up to 1 May 2026.
In light of these circumstances taken together, it is reasonable to view that the parties accepted the withdrawal of the resignation, and therefore no dismissal exists. Accordingly, …
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
a. (Primary claim) Whether a dismissal existed and, if so, whether it was justified (grounds and procedure), and whether the change in working pattern in this case gives rise to a remedial interest.
The employee submitted a resignation letter on 3 April 2026 and immediately retracted it by taking back the submitted resignation letter without the employer’s consent and tearing it up. However, in a subsequent interview, the parties agreed that the employee would continue working until 1 May 2026, and although the employee did not report to work despite the employer’s repeated urgings, the employer paid severance pay on the premise of continuous service up to 1 May 2026.
In light of these circumstances taken together, it is reasonable to view that the parties accepted the withdrawal of the resignation, and therefore no dismissal exists. Accordingly, … /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First-instance Decision Upheld
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer Under Job Rotation System)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, acceptance of withdrawal of resignation (tearing up resignation letter), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to Disciplinary Severity (Repeat Sexual Harassment at Company Dinner),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to acceptance of withdrawal of resignation (tearing up resignation letter) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Acceptance of Withdrawal of Resignation (Tearing Up Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
