Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Existence of Dismissal (Conflict over Co-Representative / Equity Demand)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 625)
- Date2026/08/15 04:13
- Read 4
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (conflict over co-representative / equity demand).”
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision where the key issue was “existence of dismissal (conflict over co-representative / equity demand),” and the employer prevailed (application dismissed).
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae1740 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-08 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
① After the worker’s request to be appointed as co-representative or to participate in the company’s equity was rejected, the worker repeatedly made statements premised on resigning. In this context, the representative’s remark “Then wrap it up” (“정리해.”) appears to have been made merely in response to the worker’s question “So I should wrap it up?” (“나 정리해요?”), and it is difficult to regard this as an expression of intent to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship by way of dismissal.
② The employer never expressly conveyed an intention to dismiss the worker, nor took any separate measures to sever the employment relationship, and the report of loss of employment insurance coverage likewise appears to have been made following the labor inspector’s recommendation after the worker filed a complaint for severance pay and other matters, etc.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the central issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the worker’s expression of intent to resign and the employer’s responsive remarks amounted to an actual dismissal. The application was dismissed at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
Through this decision, readers are encouraged to revisit, with reference to Labor Law Firm Law&’s frequent practical experience, the boundary between resignation/termination by mutual agreement and dismissal, as well as the legal nature of dismissal that distinguishes it from collective redundancy (mass layoff).
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The worker requested appointment as co-representative or participation in the company’s equity. When this request was rejected, the worker appears to have repeatedly made statements premised on resigning. During a subsequent meeting, when the worker asked, “So I should wrap it up?” (“나 정리해요?”), the representative replied, “Wrap it up” (“정리해.”). The worker regarded this as a dismissal and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The employer argued that it had never given an explicit notice of dismissal, had taken no separate measures to sever the employment relationship, and that the report of loss of employment insurance coverage was merely an administrative measure taken upon the recommendation of a labor inspector after the worker filed a complaint concerning severance pay and other issues.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the worker repeatedly made statements premised on resignation, the representative’s responsive remark “Wrap it up” (“정리해.”) and the subsequent report of loss of employment insurance coverage constitute a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, or whether the employment relationship ended due to the worker’s resignation or termination by mutual agreement.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that, after the worker’s request to be appointed as co-representative or to participate in equity was rejected, the worker repeatedly made statements premised on resigning; that the representative’s remark “Wrap it up” (“정리해.”) appears to have been merely a responsive expression to the worker’s question “So I should wrap it up?” (“나 정리해요?”); and that there was no fact that the employer had explicitly expressed an intention to dismiss in order to terminate the employment contract, nor that the employer had taken any active steps to sever the employment relationship.
The panel further found that the report of loss of employment insurance coverage appears to have been an administrative measure taken upon the recommendation of a labor inspector after the worker filed a complaint regarding severance pay and other matters. Taking all of this into account, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that there had been a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent in this case.
The panel therefore found that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and held that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was groundless.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Workers should be aware that if they repeatedly make emotionally charged statements such as “I’ll quit” or “Please let me go,” there is a risk that, even if they later attempt to retract those statements, the Labor Relations Commission may still evaluate them as having expressed a genuine intent to resign. In particular, even without a separate written notice of dismissal, employers often argue “voluntary resignation” based on the worker’s words and subsequent conduct (such as stopping attendance at work). Accordingly, any expression of intent to resign should be made cautiously, and if retraction is necessary, the worker should clearly record the intention to withdraw such statements through objective means such as written documents or text messages.
Furthermore, if the worker intends to assert that a dismissal occurred, they should secure as much evidence as possible indicating that the employer sought to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship (e.g., notice of dismissal, blocking access to the workplace, instructions to stop salary payments), so as to demonstrate that the situation was not a mere misunderstanding of words but a substantive dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it must always be borne in mind that using emotionally charged expressions such as “Then just leave” or “Then wrap it up” in the course of sensitive discussions about the worker’s request to be co-representative, equity participation, or resignation may later develop into an unfair dismissal dispute. Even if the worker first expresses an intention to resign, it is safer to obtain a clear written resignation letter or email, and to clearly organize and document whether the separation is a resignation or a termination by mutual agreement before processing it.
In addition, subsequent administrative measures such as reporting loss of employment insurance coverage and settling the four major social insurances can serve as indirect evidence supporting the legal characterization of the separation as either dismissal or resignation. Therefore, keeping a record of the circumstances (such as whether it was done at the recommendation of a labor inspector or at the worker’s request) will help enhance the credibility of the employer’s position before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
[Concluding Implications]
Unlike dismissal or collective redundancy, resignation and termination by mutual agreement are not directly subject to the statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, in actual disputes, the most fiercely contested issue is whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship was dismissal or resignation/termination by mutual agreement. This Labor Relations Commission decision illustrates that where a worker has repeatedly expressed an intention to resign in advance, and the employer’s subsequent remarks and actions do not clearly reveal a unilateral intention to dismiss, obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal will not be easy.
Both workers and employers should bear in mind that the legal characterization of the termination of an employment relationship can hinge on a single remark and the surrounding circumstances. Whether for dispute prevention or for dispute response, it is advisable from the earliest stage to seek assistance from a professional labor consultant such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
① After the worker’s request to be appointed as co-representative or to participate in equity was rejected, the worker repeatedly made statements premised on resigning. In this context, the representative’s remark “Wrap it up” (“정리해.”) appears to have been made merely in response to the worker’s remark “So I should wrap it up?” (“나 정리해요?”), and it is difficult to regard this as an expression of intent to dismiss for the purpose of unilaterally terminating the employment relationship.
② There is no fact that the employer explicitly expressed an intention to dismiss the worker, nor any fact that the employer took active steps to sever the employment relationship, and the report of loss of employment insurance coverage appears to have been made upon the recommendation of a labor inspector after the worker filed a complaint regarding severance pay and other matters.
③ …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① After the worker’s request to be appointed as co-representative or to participate in equity was rejected, the worker repeatedly made statements premised on resigning. In this context, the representative’s remark “Wrap it up” (“정리해.”) appears to have been made merely in response to the worker’s remark “So I should wrap it up?” (“나 정리해요?”), and it is difficult to regard this as an expression of intent to dismiss for the purpose of unilaterally terminating the employment relationship.
② There is no fact that the employer explicitly expressed an intention to dismiss the worker, nor any fact that the employer took active steps to sever the employment relationship, and the report of loss of employment insurance coverage appears to have been made upon the recommendation of a labor inspector after the worker filed a complaint regarding severance pay and other matters.
③ … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Discretion in Monetary Compensation Orders (Full Receipt of Initial Compensation Amount)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (conflict over co-representative / equity demand), 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Discretion in Monetary Compensation Orders (Full Receipt of Initial Compensation Amount),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (conflict over co-representative / equity demand) can be viewed together in the “Existence of Dismissal (Conflict over Co-Representative / Equity Demand) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision where the key issue was “existence of dismissal (conflict over co-representative / equity demand),” and the employer prevailed (application dismissed).
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae1740 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-08 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
① After the worker’s request to be appointed as co-representative or to participate in the company’s equity was rejected, the worker repeatedly made statements premised on resigning. In this context, the representative’s remark “Then wrap it up” (“정리해.”) appears to have been made merely in response to the worker’s question “So I should wrap it up?” (“나 정리해요?”), and it is difficult to regard this as an expression of intent to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship by way of dismissal.
② The employer never expressly conveyed an intention to dismiss the worker, nor took any separate measures to sever the employment relationship, and the report of loss of employment insurance coverage likewise appears to have been made following the labor inspector’s recommendation after the worker filed a complaint for severance pay and other matters, etc.
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the central issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the worker’s expression of intent to resign and the employer’s responsive remarks amounted to an actual dismissal. The application was dismissed at the Labor Relations Commission stage.
Through this decision, readers are encouraged to revisit, with reference to Labor Law Firm Law&’s frequent practical experience, the boundary between resignation/termination by mutual agreement and dismissal, as well as the legal nature of dismissal that distinguishes it from collective redundancy (mass layoff).
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The worker requested appointment as co-representative or participation in the company’s equity. When this request was rejected, the worker appears to have repeatedly made statements premised on resigning. During a subsequent meeting, when the worker asked, “So I should wrap it up?” (“나 정리해요?”), the representative replied, “Wrap it up” (“정리해.”). The worker regarded this as a dismissal and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The employer argued that it had never given an explicit notice of dismissal, had taken no separate measures to sever the employment relationship, and that the report of loss of employment insurance coverage was merely an administrative measure taken upon the recommendation of a labor inspector after the worker filed a complaint concerning severance pay and other issues.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the worker repeatedly made statements premised on resignation, the representative’s responsive remark “Wrap it up” (“정리해.”) and the subsequent report of loss of employment insurance coverage constitute a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, or whether the employment relationship ended due to the worker’s resignation or termination by mutual agreement.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that, after the worker’s request to be appointed as co-representative or to participate in equity was rejected, the worker repeatedly made statements premised on resigning; that the representative’s remark “Wrap it up” (“정리해.”) appears to have been merely a responsive expression to the worker’s question “So I should wrap it up?” (“나 정리해요?”); and that there was no fact that the employer had explicitly expressed an intention to dismiss in order to terminate the employment contract, nor that the employer had taken any active steps to sever the employment relationship.
The panel further found that the report of loss of employment insurance coverage appears to have been an administrative measure taken upon the recommendation of a labor inspector after the worker filed a complaint regarding severance pay and other matters. Taking all of this into account, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that there had been a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent in this case.
The panel therefore found that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and held that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was groundless.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Workers should be aware that if they repeatedly make emotionally charged statements such as “I’ll quit” or “Please let me go,” there is a risk that, even if they later attempt to retract those statements, the Labor Relations Commission may still evaluate them as having expressed a genuine intent to resign. In particular, even without a separate written notice of dismissal, employers often argue “voluntary resignation” based on the worker’s words and subsequent conduct (such as stopping attendance at work). Accordingly, any expression of intent to resign should be made cautiously, and if retraction is necessary, the worker should clearly record the intention to withdraw such statements through objective means such as written documents or text messages.
Furthermore, if the worker intends to assert that a dismissal occurred, they should secure as much evidence as possible indicating that the employer sought to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship (e.g., notice of dismissal, blocking access to the workplace, instructions to stop salary payments), so as to demonstrate that the situation was not a mere misunderstanding of words but a substantive dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it must always be borne in mind that using emotionally charged expressions such as “Then just leave” or “Then wrap it up” in the course of sensitive discussions about the worker’s request to be co-representative, equity participation, or resignation may later develop into an unfair dismissal dispute. Even if the worker first expresses an intention to resign, it is safer to obtain a clear written resignation letter or email, and to clearly organize and document whether the separation is a resignation or a termination by mutual agreement before processing it.
In addition, subsequent administrative measures such as reporting loss of employment insurance coverage and settling the four major social insurances can serve as indirect evidence supporting the legal characterization of the separation as either dismissal or resignation. Therefore, keeping a record of the circumstances (such as whether it was done at the recommendation of a labor inspector or at the worker’s request) will help enhance the credibility of the employer’s position before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
[Concluding Implications]
Unlike dismissal or collective redundancy, resignation and termination by mutual agreement are not directly subject to the statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, in actual disputes, the most fiercely contested issue is whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship was dismissal or resignation/termination by mutual agreement. This Labor Relations Commission decision illustrates that where a worker has repeatedly expressed an intention to resign in advance, and the employer’s subsequent remarks and actions do not clearly reveal a unilateral intention to dismiss, obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal will not be easy.
Both workers and employers should bear in mind that the legal characterization of the termination of an employment relationship can hinge on a single remark and the surrounding circumstances. Whether for dispute prevention or for dispute response, it is advisable from the earliest stage to seek assistance from a professional labor consultant such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
① After the worker’s request to be appointed as co-representative or to participate in equity was rejected, the worker repeatedly made statements premised on resigning. In this context, the representative’s remark “Wrap it up” (“정리해.”) appears to have been made merely in response to the worker’s remark “So I should wrap it up?” (“나 정리해요?”), and it is difficult to regard this as an expression of intent to dismiss for the purpose of unilaterally terminating the employment relationship.
② There is no fact that the employer explicitly expressed an intention to dismiss the worker, nor any fact that the employer took active steps to sever the employment relationship, and the report of loss of employment insurance coverage appears to have been made upon the recommendation of a labor inspector after the worker filed a complaint regarding severance pay and other matters.
③ …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① After the worker’s request to be appointed as co-representative or to participate in equity was rejected, the worker repeatedly made statements premised on resigning. In this context, the representative’s remark “Wrap it up” (“정리해.”) appears to have been made merely in response to the worker’s remark “So I should wrap it up?” (“나 정리해요?”), and it is difficult to regard this as an expression of intent to dismiss for the purpose of unilaterally terminating the employment relationship.
② There is no fact that the employer explicitly expressed an intention to dismiss the worker, nor any fact that the employer took active steps to sever the employment relationship, and the report of loss of employment insurance coverage appears to have been made upon the recommendation of a labor inspector after the worker filed a complaint regarding severance pay and other matters.
③ … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Discretion in Monetary Compensation Orders (Full Receipt of Initial Compensation Amount)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (conflict over co-representative / equity demand), 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Discretion in Monetary Compensation Orders (Full Receipt of Initial Compensation Amount),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (conflict over co-representative / equity demand) can be viewed together in the “Existence of Dismissal (Conflict over Co-Representative / Equity Demand) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
