[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (refusal to submit resignation letter).” Date of Decision: 2026-07-29 · Decision Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1825 Key Issue Summary: ① In 2026, the employer … 1. Legal Implications The issue in this case is “whether, in a situation where the employer requested a resignation letter and the employee then stopped reporting to work, the termination of the employment relationship constitutes an unfair dismissal.” In disputes over unfair dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission strictly distinguishes, first of all, whether there was an actual dismissal, or whether the employment relationship ended in some other form such as resignation or mutual agreement. In this case as well, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission denied the very existence of a dismissal and ruled in favor of the employer. Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, after the employer requested on 2 April 2026 that the employee submit a resignation letter, the employee clearly denied any intention to resign, stopped reporting to work, and claimed unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission focused its examination on whether the employment relationship had in fact been terminated, and if so, whether the method of termination constituted a dismissal, by comprehensively considering the employer’s subsequent measures, how employment insurance was handled, whether wages were paid, and other factors. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is “whether the mere fact that the employer requested a resignation letter constitutes a unilateral termination of the employment relationship, against the employee’s will, amounting to an unfair dismissal, or whether the situation falls under resignation, mutual termination, or continuation of the employment relationship.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employer merely requested on 2 April 2026 that the employee submit a resignation letter, and it is difficult to regard this, in itself, as demonstrating a definitive intention to terminate the employment contract; that the employee clearly refused to prepare a resignation letter on the same day and, thereafter, never expressed an intention to resign; that, after recognizing that no mutual termination had been formed, the employer notified the employee that “the employment contract remains valid, so report to work and perform your duties,” refused the employee’s request to file a loss-of-coverage report for employment insurance, and even paid wages for part of the period during which the employee did not report to work, thereby consistently expressing an absence of intention to terminate the employment relationship. In light of these circumstances, this “dismissal” was found not to constitute a unilateral termination of the employment relationship by the employer against the employee’s will, and the Commission determined that no dismissal existed at all, and therefore there was nothing unfair to adjudicate. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, when facing coercion to submit a resignation letter or pressure to resign, it is important to clearly deny any intention to resign and to consistently record that position in writing, email, text messages, and similar forms. In addition, subsequent circumstances—such as whether the employer filed a loss-of-coverage report for employment insurance, how wages were handled, and whether the employer demanded that the employee return to work—can become key evidence in determining whether there was a dismissal. Accordingly, relevant notices and communications should be systematically preserved. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, resignation, mutual termination, and dismissal should be clearly distinguished and handled accordingly. In particular, during the process of requesting a resignation letter or holding interviews, the employer should preserve objectively verifiable records of the employee’s true intentions. As in this case, if the employer intends to maintain the employment relationship, measures that clearly demonstrate that “the employment contract is ongoing”—such as maintaining the employee’s insured status under employment insurance, demanding that the employee report to work and perform duties, and paying wages—should be clearly taken. Doing so increases the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize that no dismissal occurred. To prevail in this type of case, it is necessary to first understand the legal nature of resignation, mutual termination, and dismissal, as well as the structure of the burden of proof, and to systematically organize the facts and respond to Labor Relations Commission procedures together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was determined that there was no dismissal because it could not be viewed that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning ① It is difficult to regard the mere fact that the employer requested on 2 April 2026 that the employee submit a resignation letter as indicating an intention on the part of the employer to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship; ② the employee clearly refused to prepare a resignation letter on 2 April 2026 and stated that he/she had never, thereafter, expressed an intention to resign; ③ the employer, recognizing that no mutual termination of the employment contract had been formed, immediately notified the employee that the employment contract remained valid and that the employee should report to work and perform duties, refused the employee’s request to file a loss-of-coverage report for employment insurance, and even paid wages for part of the period during which the employee did not report to work, thereby consistently expressing an absence of intention to terminate the employment relationship. In light of all these circumstances, it cannot be viewed that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship regardless of the employee’s will, and therefore there was no dismissal. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissal of Application - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Necessity of Business (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (refusal to submit 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Level of Disciplinary Action (Workplace Bullying),” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (refusal to submit resignation letter) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Refusal to Submit Resignation Letter).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article