Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Involving “Termination by Agreement (Handwritten Agreement)” (Unfair Dismissal 605)
- Date2026/08/08 04:04
- Read 5
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “termination by agreement (handwritten agreement).”
Decision-making body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae533 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026-07-16 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: In light of the facts that the parties prepared and signed/stamped an “agreement” stating that the employment relationship would be terminated by mutual agreement, and that, considering the content of the “agreement” and the circumstances of its preparation, the employer cannot be deemed to have pressured the employee to terminate the employment contract or forced the employee to prepare the agreement, the employment relationship between the parties was found to have been terminated by agreement. Accordingly, no dismissal existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee prepared and signed an “agreement” with the company to terminate the employment relationship, the employee claimed that this was in substance an unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. After reviewing the overall content of the agreement and the circumstances under which it was prepared, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission held that the employment contract had been terminated not by dismissal but by termination by agreement between the parties, and dismissed the employee’s application for relief.
This decision provides important guidance on how the Labor Relations Commission determines the existence of a dismissal in unfair dismissal disputes where a handwritten agreement exists, and on what each of the employee and employer must prove.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the agreement on termination of the employment relationship prepared by the employee and the employer can be regarded as a genuine termination by agreement, or whether it should instead be viewed as a de facto dismissal caused by employer pressure and thus subject to unfair dismissal relief.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the document presented by the employer was not a simple resignation letter but an “agreement” on termination of the employment contract, thereby taking the form of mutual consent; that the employee personally signed and stamped the agreement; and that, in light of the wording of the agreement and the process by which it was prepared, there were no circumstances indicating that the employer forced the employee to resign or pressured the employee through coercion or deceit.
Accordingly, the Commission determined that the employment contract was terminated not by the employee’s unilateral notice of resignation or by the employer’s dismissal, but by termination by agreement between the parties.
The Commission therefore found that no dismissal existed in this case, and dismissed the unfair dismissal relief application on the ground that the prerequisite of a “dismissal” itself was not met.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Any agreement or resignation letter that an employee is encouraged to sign by the company will later serve as very important evidence before the Labor Relations Commission. Before signing, employees should therefore carefully reconfirm that the document reflects their true intention and that they fully understand its wording. If there was severe pressure, threats, or deceit during the process of reaching the agreement, the employee should preserve evidence of those circumstances (such as conversation records, audio recordings, text messages, or statements from persons present) to later prove that “there was no genuine agreement.”
If an agreement has already been submitted, under civil law principles, termination by agreement may be revoked before the other party’s intention to accept has been formed and communicated. Accordingly, employees should promptly notify the employer in writing of their intention to revoke, and then seek advice from the Labor Relations Commission or legal professionals (for example, Labor Law Firm Law&) as soon as possible.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When a company pursues voluntary resignations or terminations by agreement as part of workforce adjustment, business necessity, or as an alternative to collective redundancies, the key is to ensure transparency and voluntariness in the process so as not to be misunderstood as attempting to circumvent the statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Specifically, it is advisable to state in the agreement the reason for terminating the employment relationship, the employee’s voluntary intention, and the fact that a sufficient cooling-off period was granted, and to retain consultation records, interview notes, and similar materials that can prove there was no coercion or undue pressure.
In addition, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, employers should avoid conflating termination by agreement with dismissal. Where collective redundancies are necessary, employers should establish separate procedures that satisfy the requirements for redundancy dismissals (such as business necessity, efforts to avoid dismissal, reasonable and fair selection criteria, and good-faith consultation).
[Summary and Implications]
When determining whether an unfair dismissal has occurred, if there is a formal “agreement,” the Labor Relations Commission tends to first examine substantively whether that agreement was based on the parties’ genuine intentions and whether there was any improper pressure by the employer. As in this case, where it is difficult to find indications of coercion or deceit in the wording of the agreement, the presence of signatures and seals, or the circumstances of its preparation, the Commission may conclude that the employment relationship was terminated by agreement and dismiss the unfair dismissal relief application itself.
Accordingly, in order to prevail in similar cases, employees should systematically organize and prove the involuntary nature of the “agreement” and the specific circumstances of employer pressure, while employers should systematically organize and prove the existence of a “voluntary agreement” and the fact that the procedure was conducted fairly. In doing so, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts familiar with Labor Relations Commission practice and relevant case law, such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the facts that the employee and employer prepared, signed, and stamped an “agreement” stating that the employment relationship would be terminated by mutual agreement, and that, considering the content of the “agreement” and the circumstances of its preparation, the employer cannot be deemed to have pressured the employee to terminate the employment contract or forced the employee to prepare the agreement, the employment relationship between the parties was found to have been terminated by agreement, and no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the facts that the employee and employer prepared, signed, and stamped an “agreement” stating that the employment relationship would be terminated by mutual agreement, and that, considering the content of the “agreement” and the circumstances of its preparation, the employer cannot be deemed to have pressured the employee to terminate the employment contract or forced the employee to prepare the agreement, the employment relationship between the parties was found to have been terminated by agreement, and no dismissal existed. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Involving Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Involving Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Involving Non-formation of Conditional Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, termination by agreement (handwritten agreement), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Involving Expectation of Renewal (Performance Evaluation of Fixed-term Employee),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to termination by agreement (handwritten agreement) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Termination by Agreement (Handwritten Agreement).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision-making body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae533 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026-07-16 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: In light of the facts that the parties prepared and signed/stamped an “agreement” stating that the employment relationship would be terminated by mutual agreement, and that, considering the content of the “agreement” and the circumstances of its preparation, the employer cannot be deemed to have pressured the employee to terminate the employment contract or forced the employee to prepare the agreement, the employment relationship between the parties was found to have been terminated by agreement. Accordingly, no dismissal existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee prepared and signed an “agreement” with the company to terminate the employment relationship, the employee claimed that this was in substance an unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. After reviewing the overall content of the agreement and the circumstances under which it was prepared, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission held that the employment contract had been terminated not by dismissal but by termination by agreement between the parties, and dismissed the employee’s application for relief.
This decision provides important guidance on how the Labor Relations Commission determines the existence of a dismissal in unfair dismissal disputes where a handwritten agreement exists, and on what each of the employee and employer must prove.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the agreement on termination of the employment relationship prepared by the employee and the employer can be regarded as a genuine termination by agreement, or whether it should instead be viewed as a de facto dismissal caused by employer pressure and thus subject to unfair dismissal relief.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the document presented by the employer was not a simple resignation letter but an “agreement” on termination of the employment contract, thereby taking the form of mutual consent; that the employee personally signed and stamped the agreement; and that, in light of the wording of the agreement and the process by which it was prepared, there were no circumstances indicating that the employer forced the employee to resign or pressured the employee through coercion or deceit.
Accordingly, the Commission determined that the employment contract was terminated not by the employee’s unilateral notice of resignation or by the employer’s dismissal, but by termination by agreement between the parties.
The Commission therefore found that no dismissal existed in this case, and dismissed the unfair dismissal relief application on the ground that the prerequisite of a “dismissal” itself was not met.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Any agreement or resignation letter that an employee is encouraged to sign by the company will later serve as very important evidence before the Labor Relations Commission. Before signing, employees should therefore carefully reconfirm that the document reflects their true intention and that they fully understand its wording. If there was severe pressure, threats, or deceit during the process of reaching the agreement, the employee should preserve evidence of those circumstances (such as conversation records, audio recordings, text messages, or statements from persons present) to later prove that “there was no genuine agreement.”
If an agreement has already been submitted, under civil law principles, termination by agreement may be revoked before the other party’s intention to accept has been formed and communicated. Accordingly, employees should promptly notify the employer in writing of their intention to revoke, and then seek advice from the Labor Relations Commission or legal professionals (for example, Labor Law Firm Law&) as soon as possible.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When a company pursues voluntary resignations or terminations by agreement as part of workforce adjustment, business necessity, or as an alternative to collective redundancies, the key is to ensure transparency and voluntariness in the process so as not to be misunderstood as attempting to circumvent the statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Specifically, it is advisable to state in the agreement the reason for terminating the employment relationship, the employee’s voluntary intention, and the fact that a sufficient cooling-off period was granted, and to retain consultation records, interview notes, and similar materials that can prove there was no coercion or undue pressure.
In addition, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, employers should avoid conflating termination by agreement with dismissal. Where collective redundancies are necessary, employers should establish separate procedures that satisfy the requirements for redundancy dismissals (such as business necessity, efforts to avoid dismissal, reasonable and fair selection criteria, and good-faith consultation).
[Summary and Implications]
When determining whether an unfair dismissal has occurred, if there is a formal “agreement,” the Labor Relations Commission tends to first examine substantively whether that agreement was based on the parties’ genuine intentions and whether there was any improper pressure by the employer. As in this case, where it is difficult to find indications of coercion or deceit in the wording of the agreement, the presence of signatures and seals, or the circumstances of its preparation, the Commission may conclude that the employment relationship was terminated by agreement and dismiss the unfair dismissal relief application itself.
Accordingly, in order to prevail in similar cases, employees should systematically organize and prove the involuntary nature of the “agreement” and the specific circumstances of employer pressure, while employers should systematically organize and prove the existence of a “voluntary agreement” and the fact that the procedure was conducted fairly. In doing so, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts familiar with Labor Relations Commission practice and relevant case law, such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the facts that the employee and employer prepared, signed, and stamped an “agreement” stating that the employment relationship would be terminated by mutual agreement, and that, considering the content of the “agreement” and the circumstances of its preparation, the employer cannot be deemed to have pressured the employee to terminate the employment contract or forced the employee to prepare the agreement, the employment relationship between the parties was found to have been terminated by agreement, and no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the facts that the employee and employer prepared, signed, and stamped an “agreement” stating that the employment relationship would be terminated by mutual agreement, and that, considering the content of the “agreement” and the circumstances of its preparation, the employer cannot be deemed to have pressured the employee to terminate the employment contract or forced the employee to prepare the agreement, the employment relationship between the parties was found to have been terminated by agreement, and no dismissal existed. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Involving Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Involving Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Involving Non-formation of Conditional Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, termination by agreement (handwritten agreement), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Involving Expectation of Renewal (Performance Evaluation of Fixed-term Employee),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to termination by agreement (handwritten agreement) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Termination by Agreement (Handwritten Agreement).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
