This case on “misunderstanding the existence of dismissal (encouragement to resign · change of position)” ended with a decision in favor of the employer (application dismissed). [Case Information] This case is a labor commission decision in which, on the issue of “misunderstanding the existence of dismissal (encouragement to resign · change of position),” the employer ultimately prevailed and the worker’s application was dismissed. Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1652 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-06 · Result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: The employer encouraged the worker to resign, and when the worker did not agree, the employer only ordered the submission of a written explanation and a change of position. There was no confirmation that the worker had been dismissed. It was found that the worker misunderstood the situation as a dismissal and stopped coming to work, and thus it was recognized that no dismissal existed. / 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether a dismissal actually existed where the employer had encouraged the worker to resign and subsequently ordered the submission of a written explanation and a change of position. The worker, believing that he had been dismissed, stopped reporting to work and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. However, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission held that no dismissal itself existed and dismissed the worker’s application. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where the employer has encouraged the worker to resign and ordered the submission of a written explanation and a change of position, can it be deemed that a ‘dismissal’—which is a prerequisite for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal—exists, even when the worker misunderstands this as a dismissal and stops coming to work?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employer had encouraged the worker to resign, but the worker did not agree; that thereafter the employer only demanded a written explanation and ordered a change of position, and there was no confirmed fact that the employer had explicitly notified the worker of an intention to terminate the employment contract; and that it appeared the worker misunderstood this situation as a dismissal and did not report to work. On this basis, the panel determined that no dismissal disposition existed in this case and found it difficult to accept the worker’s claim of unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission, while premising its reasoning on the general legal principle that, where the existence of a dismissal is in dispute and the employer asserts resignation or termination by mutual agreement, the employer bears the burden of proving the worker’s clear expression of intent to resign or the fact of termination by mutual agreement, held that in this case the employer had not made any expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship in any form. In other words, the encouragement to resign, the demand for a written explanation, and the order to change position were all acts within the scope of personnel/disciplinary procedures, and there was no “unilateral expression of intent to terminate the employment contract” that can be regarded as a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Commission found that there was no dismissal that could be the subject of an unfair dismissal remedy. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s standpoint, it is important to note that the employer’s encouragement to resign, strong reprimands, changes of position, and demands for written explanations do not immediately have the same effect as a dismissal. A dismissal requires an explicit and unilateral expression of intent by the employer to terminate the employment contract. Therefore, concluding that one has been dismissed based only on ambiguous language or atmosphere and then being absent from work without permission may work to the worker’s disadvantage. Accordingly, if you receive an encouragement to resign or notice of a personnel measure, you should clearly confirm “whether you have been dismissed” via text message, email, etc., and, if possible, consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to distinguish the legal nature of resignation, termination by mutual agreement, and dismissal before responding. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when encouraging resignation or taking personnel measures, it is important to communicate the company’s final position on whether the employment relationship will be maintained using clear and distinct wording. If expressions such as “we encourage you to resign” and “you are dismissed” are mixed, disputes may arise if the worker misunderstands the situation as a dismissal, even when there was in fact no intention to dismiss. In addition, although demands for written explanations and orders to change position are, in principle, measures within the scope of the employer’s personnel authority, when combined with repeated and coercive pressure to resign, they may be evaluated as a de facto dismissal in the form of voluntary resignation. Therefore, employers should objectively record the content of related interviews and the background of the measures taken. This decision confirms once again that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the Labor Relations Commission first strictly examines “whether a substantive dismissal exists,” and that clearly distinguishing the nature of personnel and labor measures—such as resignation, termination by mutual agreement, transfer, and discipline—is key to preventing disputes for both workers and employers. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History The employer encouraged the worker to resign, but when the worker did not agree, the employer only ordered the submission of a written explanation and a change of position. There was no confirmation that the worker had been dismissed. It was recognized that the worker misunderstood the situation as a dismissal and did not report to work, and thus that no dismissal existed. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employer encouraged the worker to resign, but when the worker did not agree, the employer only ordered the submission of a written explanation and a change of position. There was no confirmation that the worker had been dismissed. It was recognized that the worker misunderstood the situation as a dismissal and did not report to work, and thus that no dismissal existed. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Establishment of Employment Relationship (Daily Worker Employment Contract)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Establishment of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, misunderstanding the existence of dismissal (encouragement to resign · change of position), 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 Decision on Establishment of Employment Relationship (Daily Worker Employment Contract),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to misunderstanding the existence of dismissal (encouragement to resign · change of position) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Misunderstanding the Existence of Dismissal (Encouragement to Resign · Change of Position).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article