[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “genuineness of the intention to resign (taxi driver in an ‘open-door start’ case).” Decision date: 2026-10-01 · Labor Relations Commission: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해183 Summary of key issue: It was acknowledged as fact that a manager on the employer’s side handed a resignation form to the employee and stated, in substance, that “a person who committed a hit-and-run cannot be retained as an employee.” 1. Legal Implications An application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed with the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Commission held that the termination of the employment relationship in this case did not constitute a dismissal but rather a mutual termination by way of a letter of resignation. The employee who alleged unfair dismissal submitted a resignation letter following a hit-and-run allegation related to an “open-door start” while driving a taxi, and the Commission, after considering the surrounding circumstances and statements, concluded that this was not an unfair dismissal induced by the employer’s coercion. Through this decision, we aim to整理 how the Commission distinguishes between resignation and dismissal, and what legal principles are applied in similar cases, and to share the implications from the practical perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&. The issue in this case was whether “the mere fact that the employer obtained a resignation letter while stating, in substance, that ‘a person who committed a hit-and-run cannot be retained as an employee’ is sufficient to regard the employee’s resignation as a de facto dismissal induced by coercion.” Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee in this case had long been engaged in taxi driving duties when, during the process of a passenger alighting, an allegation of hit-and-run arose in connection with an “open-door start,” leading the company to raise an issue. Thereafter, a manager on the employer’s side handed a resignation form to the employee while stating, in substance, that “a person who committed a hit-and-run cannot be retained as an employee,” and the employee handwrote and submitted a resignation letter. The employee later filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that submission of the resignation letter had been an unavoidable choice made under the employer’s coercion. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the employee had voluntarily resigned, and the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined, based on the evidence and circumstances, whether a dismissal existed. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case were whether the mere fact that there were a disparaging remark by the employer and the handing over of a resignation form is sufficient to deem that the employee “had no choice but to” submit a resignation letter, and further, whether the submission of that resignation letter can be regarded as an expression of intent not reflecting true intention or as made under duress, thereby constituting a substantive unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case acknowledged as fact that a manager on the employer’s side handed a resignation form to the employee while stating, in substance, that “a person who committed a hit-and-run cannot be retained as an employee.” However, the employee had long been engaged in taxi driving and had in the past submitted a resignation letter and then had it returned, and thus was aware of the legal significance of resignation, yet nonetheless handwrote, signed, and submitted the resignation letter. There were no circumstances indicating that specific disadvantages (disciplinary action, dismissal, damages, etc.) were notified in the event the employee refused to write the resignation letter, and the risk of criminal punishment had in effect been eliminated by a decision not to institute a criminal case (불입건) in relation to the open-door start, so that the employee could have refused the request to resign and contested the matter. In light of these factors, the Commission determined that it was difficult to find that the employee submitted the resignation letter in a situation where his or her free formation of intent was effectively blocked and there was no choice. In addition, on the day the resignation letter was submitted, the employee did not request withdrawal of the resignation or reinstatement, but only requested a change in the reason for resignation for the purpose of receiving unemployment benefits. In view of this, the Commission held that the employee must be deemed to have expressed an intention to resign upon judging that resignation was the best option, and that this could not be regarded as an expression of intent not reflecting true intention or as one made by fraud or duress. Accordingly, the employment contract relationship was found to have been terminated by mutual agreement (voluntary resignation) through the submission and acceptance of the resignation letter, and the Commission held that no substantive dismissal existed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For an employee to successfully contest unfair dismissal, it is not sufficient merely to assert that he or she “felt pressured.” The employee must secure circumstances and evidence supporting that free decision-making was in fact impossible due to factors such as abusive language or verbal abuse, prolonged interview tantamount to confinement, or threats of specific disadvantages. The employee’s conduct after submitting the resignation letter is also important. Therefore, if one genuinely intends to contest a dismissal, it is advisable to promptly record, in clear written form (text message, email, etc.), a withdrawal of the intention to resign or an intention to return to work. If the criminal risk has been reduced by a decision not to institute a criminal case or similar measure, the persuasiveness of the assertion that one “had no choice but to resign” may be weakened. Accordingly, at the stage of contemplating resignation, it is advisable to first consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to sufficiently review whether the situation constitutes a dismissal, whether there is a possibility of redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal, and how the legal position, including entitlement to unemployment benefits, would differ in the event of resignation. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective) Where an employer effectively induces resignation by handing over a resignation form while making disparaging remarks, there is a significant risk that, depending on the circumstances, this may be evaluated as forced voluntary resignation and later be overturned as an unfair dismissal. In particular, the practice of demanding blanket submission of resignation letters in order to avoid redundancy or disciplinary dismissals may be evaluated as an expression of intent not reflecting true intention or as a de facto dismissal. It is therefore safer in the medium to long term to clearly distinguish between resignation/mutual termination and dismissal, and, where necessary, to properly establish and follow dismissal grounds and procedures head-on. As seen in this decision, the Labor Relations Commission determines the genuineness of resignation by comprehensively considering all relevant circumstances, including the process by which the resignation letter was prepared, any prior experience of resignation, the possibility of refusing to resign, and the employee’s conduct after resignation. Accordingly, companies should objectify the statements and course of events during interviews by means such as notes or recordings, and, when recommending resignation, design procedures so as to avoid any room for misunderstanding as duress or fraud, for example by presenting options and allowing a cooling-off period. 2. Matters Decided A case in which it was held that no dismissal existed and that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement, on the ground that it was difficult to find that the employee had no choice but to write and submit a resignation letter under the employer’s coercion. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning It was acknowledged as fact that a manager on the employer’s side handed a resignation form to the employee and stated, in substance, that “a person who committed a hit-and-run cannot be retained as an employee.” However, the employee had long been engaged in taxi driving and had previously submitted a resignation letter and then had it returned, and thus, despite being aware of the significance of submitting a resignation letter, handwrote, signed, and submitted the resignation letter. There was no fact that any disadvantage in the event of refusing to write the resignation letter was notified, and the employee had already received a decision not to institute a criminal case in relation to the open-door start, and thus could have refused the request to resign and contested the matter. In addition, on the day the resignation letter was submitted, the employee requested not withdrawal of the resignation but only a change in the reason for resignation for the purpose of receiving unemployment benefits. In light of these circumstances as a whole, it is reasonable to view that the employee, judging that resignation was the best option in the situation at the time, expressed an intention to resign, and this cannot be regarded as an expression of intent not reflecting true intention or as one made by fraud or duress. Accordingly, as the employment contract relationship was terminated by mutual agreement through the submission and acceptance of the resignation letter, no dismissal exists. [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Remedial Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employee)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case No.: Initial decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, genuineness of intention to resign (taxi driver in open-door start case), 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 Relating to ‘Business Necessity (Transfer of Indefinite-Term Employee in Conflict)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to genuineness of intention to resign (taxi driver in open-door start case) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Genuineness of Intention to Resign (Taxi Driver in Open-Door Start Case).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article