[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (request to resign · expression of intent to resign).” Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해656 – ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision Date: 2026-07-29 · Result: Dismissed Summary of Key Issue: The employees each demanded severance pay or acted in a manner indicating an intention to resign on the premise that the employment relationship had ended, yet there is no indication that they protested to the employer that this was unfair or that they expressed an intention to continue reporting to work. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been effected solely by the employer’s unilateral intent. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employees filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission after their employment relationship with the employer had already been terminated. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted a hearing under Case No. 2026부해656. The Commission focused its review on whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal by the employer or a resignation based on the employees’ own intent, taking into account, in particular, the circumstances surrounding the employees’ demands for severance pay and their expressions of intent to resign. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employees demanded severance pay and expressed an intention to resign, the termination of the employment relationship can nonetheless be regarded as a unilateral dismissal by the employer. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The adjudicating panel noted that the employees each acted on the premise that their employment relationship had ended by demanding severance pay or expressing an intention to resign; that, at the same time, there was no indication that they protested to the employer that this was unfair or clearly expressed an intention to continue reporting to work; and that there was insufficient evidence to find that the termination of the employment relationship was effected by a unilateral notice or disciplinary measure by the employer. In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that it was difficult to conclude that the termination of the employment relationship was a dismissal based solely on the employer’s unilateral intent. Accordingly, the panel held that the termination in this case could not readily be regarded as an unfair unilateral dismissal by the employer, as alleged by the employees. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) If an employee demands severance pay or makes a statement to the effect of “I will quit,” it is important, if the employee later wishes to contest the matter as an unfair dismissal, to clearly preserve evidence as to whether there was an immediate notice of dismissal and that the employee intended to continue working. In particular, it is advisable to clearly state, via text message, email, or similar means, that “I have received a notice of dismissal and I wish to be reinstated,” as this will assist in proving the existence of a dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when an employee expresses an intention to resign or demands severance pay, it is advisable to obtain written confirmation as to whether this reflects a voluntary resignation, a mutual termination by agreement, or merely an emotional remark. In addition, in the context of restructuring or collective redundancies, inducing employees to submit resignation letters may later develop into disputes over unfair dismissal. Employers should therefore consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to systematically establish procedures and supporting documentation. This decision of the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission again illustrates that, before an allegation of unfair dismissal is examined, it must first be clearly established on what basis the employment relationship was terminated (i.e., dismissal, resignation, or mutual termination). The Labor Relations Commission determines the existence of a dismissal by comprehensively considering the specific words and conduct of the employee and employer, whether severance pay was demanded, whether there was any expression of intent to continue working, and other factual circumstances. To prevent similar disputes, it is important to carefully organize relevant materials and circumstances from the earliest stage. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History The employees each demanded severance pay or acted in a manner indicating an intention to resign on the premise that the employment relationship had ended, yet there is no indication that they protested to the employer that this was unfair or expressed an intention to continue reporting to work. Therefore, it is difficult to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been effected by the employer’s unilateral intent. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employees each demanded severance pay or acted in a manner indicating an intention to resign on the premise that the employment relationship had ended, yet there is no indication that they protested to the employer that this was unfair or expressed an intention to continue reporting to work. Therefore, it is difficult to view the termination of the employment relationship as having been effected by the employer’s unilateral intent. / [Further Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision: Application Dismissed - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision: First-Instance Decision Upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (request to resign · expression of intent to resign), 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&. ※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Employer Standing (Denial of Expectation Right to Succession of Employment)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (request to resign · expression of intent to resign) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Request to Resign · Expression of Intent to Resign).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article