Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Voluntary Resignation (Forced Resignation Letter)’ and Unfair Dismissal – Decision Summary (Unfair Dismissal 542)
- Date2026/07/14 04:12
- Read 15
[Case Information]
This case is a labor commission decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “voluntary resignation (forced resignation letter).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae388 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-29 · Outcome: Full recognition of unfair dismissal
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where an employer, after compelling an employee who has no intention to resign to prepare and submit a resignation letter, accepts that letter and thereby terminates the employment relationship in the form of so‑called “voluntary resignation,” this in substance constitutes termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral intent and therefore amounts to a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether it constitutes unfair dismissal when an employer, despite the employee’s lack of any intent to resign, effectively forces the employee to leave, has the employee submit a resignation letter, and then processes the separation as a voluntary resignation.
The employee filed an application not only for a remedy for unfair dismissal but also for monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position. On 29 May 2026, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision fully recognizing the unfair dismissal and granting the requested remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were:
(1) Where an employee, despite having no voluntary intention to resign, prepares and submits a resignation letter under pressure from the employer, and the employer accepts it and processes the separation as a voluntary resignation, whether this can be regarded as a dismissal; and
(2) Whether a dismissal in which the employer fails to notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal due to procedural defects.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that:
- The employer compelled an employee, who had no intention to resign, to prepare and submit a resignation letter and then accepted it to terminate the employment relationship;
- Even though the termination was labeled and processed as “voluntary resignation,” in substance the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship; and
- No written notice whatsoever was provided specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the Commission held that this disposition:
- Does not constitute resignation or termination by mutual agreement, but rather a dismissal against the employee’s will; and
- Is unfair due to a serious procedural defect arising from the violation of the written‑notice requirement, regardless of whether the substantive grounds for dismissal were justifiable.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that even if they have written a resignation letter under pressure from the employer, they may still apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal if they did not have a genuine intention to resign.
In addition, even where you have been verbally notified of dismissal or only processed as having lost coverage under the four major social insurances, you should carefully check:
- Whether you have ever received a written document stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal; and
- Whether the contents of such document, if any, are sufficiently specific.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Employers must bear in mind that:
- Forcing employees to submit resignation letters, or terminating the employment relationship under different labels such as voluntary resignation, automatic resignation, or dismissal by authority, in order to circumvent the statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, carries a very high risk of being found to constitute unfair dismissal.
Further, when proceeding with a dismissal, employers should:
- Provide the employee in advance with a written notice that specifies, in terms the employee can understand, the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; and
- Where the dismissal falls under other types such as redundancy (collective dismissal), ensure that the separate statutory requirements for such dismissals are satisfied by appropriately organizing and managing the company’s HR and labor‑management systems.
Decisions of this kind are repeatedly confirmed in the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, which has handled numerous unfair dismissal cases and Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures. Both employers and employees should always keep in mind that the existence of a dismissal and the legality of dismissal procedures are determined based on substance rather than form.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where an employer, after compelling an employee who has no intention to resign to prepare and submit a resignation letter, accepts that letter and thereby terminates the employment relationship in the form of so‑called “voluntary resignation,” this in substance constitutes termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral intent and therefore amounts to a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
Since it was established that the employer failed to notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, this dismissal is unfair due to a serious procedural defect, regardless of whether the grounds for dismissal were substantively justifiable.
C. Whether to grant the application for an order of monetary compensation
The employee sought monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position...
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where an employer, after compelling an employee who has no intention to resign to prepare and submit a resignation letter, accepts that letter and thereby terminates the employment relationship in the form of so‑called “voluntary resignation,” this in substance constitutes termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral intent and therefore amounts to a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
Since it was established that the employer failed to notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, this dismissal is unfair due to a serious procedural defect, regardless of whether the grounds for dismissal were substantively justifiable.
C. Whether to grant the application for an order of monetary compensation
The employee sought monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position...
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal Rejected (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Rejected
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, voluntary resignation (forced 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, “‘Legitimacy of Job Transfer (Employee with Disability Rating as National Merit Recipient)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to voluntary resignation (forced resignation letter) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Voluntary Resignation (Forced Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a labor commission decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “voluntary resignation (forced resignation letter).”
Decision body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae388 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-29 · Outcome: Full recognition of unfair dismissal
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where an employer, after compelling an employee who has no intention to resign to prepare and submit a resignation letter, accepts that letter and thereby terminates the employment relationship in the form of so‑called “voluntary resignation,” this in substance constitutes termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral intent and therefore amounts to a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether it constitutes unfair dismissal when an employer, despite the employee’s lack of any intent to resign, effectively forces the employee to leave, has the employee submit a resignation letter, and then processes the separation as a voluntary resignation.
The employee filed an application not only for a remedy for unfair dismissal but also for monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position. On 29 May 2026, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision fully recognizing the unfair dismissal and granting the requested remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were:
(1) Where an employee, despite having no voluntary intention to resign, prepares and submits a resignation letter under pressure from the employer, and the employer accepts it and processes the separation as a voluntary resignation, whether this can be regarded as a dismissal; and
(2) Whether a dismissal in which the employer fails to notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal due to procedural defects.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that:
- The employer compelled an employee, who had no intention to resign, to prepare and submit a resignation letter and then accepted it to terminate the employment relationship;
- Even though the termination was labeled and processed as “voluntary resignation,” in substance the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship; and
- No written notice whatsoever was provided specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the Commission held that this disposition:
- Does not constitute resignation or termination by mutual agreement, but rather a dismissal against the employee’s will; and
- Is unfair due to a serious procedural defect arising from the violation of the written‑notice requirement, regardless of whether the substantive grounds for dismissal were justifiable.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that even if they have written a resignation letter under pressure from the employer, they may still apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal if they did not have a genuine intention to resign.
In addition, even where you have been verbally notified of dismissal or only processed as having lost coverage under the four major social insurances, you should carefully check:
- Whether you have ever received a written document stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal; and
- Whether the contents of such document, if any, are sufficiently specific.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Employers must bear in mind that:
- Forcing employees to submit resignation letters, or terminating the employment relationship under different labels such as voluntary resignation, automatic resignation, or dismissal by authority, in order to circumvent the statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, carries a very high risk of being found to constitute unfair dismissal.
Further, when proceeding with a dismissal, employers should:
- Provide the employee in advance with a written notice that specifies, in terms the employee can understand, the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; and
- Where the dismissal falls under other types such as redundancy (collective dismissal), ensure that the separate statutory requirements for such dismissals are satisfied by appropriately organizing and managing the company’s HR and labor‑management systems.
Decisions of this kind are repeatedly confirmed in the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, which has handled numerous unfair dismissal cases and Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures. Both employers and employees should always keep in mind that the existence of a dismissal and the legality of dismissal procedures are determined based on substance rather than form.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where an employer, after compelling an employee who has no intention to resign to prepare and submit a resignation letter, accepts that letter and thereby terminates the employment relationship in the form of so‑called “voluntary resignation,” this in substance constitutes termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral intent and therefore amounts to a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
Since it was established that the employer failed to notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, this dismissal is unfair due to a serious procedural defect, regardless of whether the grounds for dismissal were substantively justifiable.
C. Whether to grant the application for an order of monetary compensation
The employee sought monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position...
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where an employer, after compelling an employee who has no intention to resign to prepare and submit a resignation letter, accepts that letter and thereby terminates the employment relationship in the form of so‑called “voluntary resignation,” this in substance constitutes termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral intent and therefore amounts to a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
Since it was established that the employer failed to notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, this dismissal is unfair due to a serious procedural defect, regardless of whether the grounds for dismissal were substantively justifiable.
C. Whether to grant the application for an order of monetary compensation
The employee sought monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position...
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal Rejected (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Rejected
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, voluntary resignation (forced 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, “‘Legitimacy of Job Transfer (Employee with Disability Rating as National Merit Recipient)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to voluntary resignation (forced resignation letter) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Voluntary Resignation (Forced Resignation Letter).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
