[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “expression of intent not reflecting true intent (voluntary resignation following notice of removal from team leader position).” Decision date: 2026-09-04 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae440 Key issue summary: ① The employee in 2025. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee serving as a team leader received notice of removal from his position, then submitted a resignation letter on his own initiative. He subsequently filed an application for relief for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Central Labor Relations Commission held that he no longer had any remedial interest. Although the employee argued that he had withdrawn his expression of intent to resign, the Commission found that the employment relationship had already been terminated and therefore could not be the subject of an unfair dismissal relief order. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is “whether, in a situation where an employee submits a resignation letter after receiving notice of removal from his position and later claims to withdraw his intent to resign, that resignation constitutes an expression of intent not reflecting his true intent, and whether, at the time of filing the unfair dismissal application, there existed any benefit (remedial interest) in receiving a relief order from the Labor Relations Commission.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that the employee had expressed his intent to resign effective 30 November 2025, that there were no objective circumstances or evidence indicating that this resignation was made under coercion or duress, and that the employee himself decided to resign before the removal from position took effect because he considered it advantageous for his career to be recognized as a “team leader” when changing jobs. It also noted that, absent special circumstances, an expression of intent to resign constitutes a notice of termination of the employment contract, and once it reaches the employer, it cannot be withdrawn without the employer’s consent even before the lapse of the period under Article 660(3) of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the employee’s attempted withdrawal of his resignation on 22 November 2025 was deemed ineffective, and as of the date of the relief application (4 December 2025), the employment relationship had already been terminated and the employee’s status had extinguished. On that basis, the Commission held that the employee’s remedial interest in receiving an unfair dismissal relief order—such as reinstatement to the original position and payment of wages in lieu—had also lapsed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) When an employee submits a resignation letter voluntarily, that expression of intent to resign is, in principle, regarded as a notice of termination of the employment contract, and once it reaches the employer, it cannot be unilaterally withdrawn without the employer’s consent. If, in response to removal from position, personnel transfer, or the possibility of redundancy, an employee emotionally submits a resignation letter first, the Labor Relations Commission may later determine, even if the employee claims unfair dismissal, that the employment relationship has already ended by resignation and that no remedial interest exists. At the stage of merely contemplating resignation, it is advisable to consult sufficiently with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& before submitting a resignation letter. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to be able to prove that the employee’s submission of a resignation letter was a voluntary decision and that there was no coercion, inducement, or threat of disadvantage. To that end, the circumstances of the resignation and the content of any interviews should be clearly recorded in writing or by audio recording. In addition, if the employer wishes to argue in an unfair dismissal dispute that the separation was a resignation or mutual termination rather than a dismissal, it must manage consistently the timing and manner of the expression of intent to resign and the subsequent handling (acceptance, etc.). It is also necessary to distinguish which issues should be resolved through civil litigation, rather than through the Labor Relations Commission’s relief procedures, once the employment relationship has already been terminated. In this type of case, both employees and employers should accurately understand the legal nature of resignation, dismissal, and mutual termination, as well as the doctrine of loss of remedial interest, and seek legal assistance from specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the earliest stage. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was decided that, at the time of the relief application, the employment relationship had already been terminated and therefore there was no interest in receiving a relief order from the Labor Relations Commission. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings ① There is no dispute between the parties that the employee expressed his intent to resign effective 30 November 2025, and there are no circumstances or evidence sufficient to find that the employee’s expression of intent to resign was made under coercion or duress; ② It is recognized that, with respect to the removal from position effective 1 December 2025, which the employer had notified on 13 November 2025, the employee expressed his intent to resign effective 30 November 2025 because he judged that resigning before the removal from position took effect was the best way to be recognized as a “team leader” in terms of career when changing jobs. Thus, it is difficult to regard this as an expression of intent not reflecting his true inner intent; ③ The employee’s expression of intent to resign on 13 November 2025 is, absent special circumstances, to be regarded as a notice of termination of the employment contract in question. Once an expression of intent to resign, which notifies termination of the employment contract, has reached the employer, the employee cannot withdraw that expression of intent to resign without the employer’s consent, even if the period prescribed in Article 660(3) of the Civil Act has not yet elapsed. Therefore, the withdrawal of the resignation made by the employee on 22 November 2025 cannot be recognized as effective; ④ Accordingly, as of 4 December 2025, when the employee filed the relief application, the employment relationship had already been terminated, and it is reasonable to view that the employee was no longer in the status of an employee and that his interest in receiving a relief order from the Labor Relations Commission had lapsed. [See More Related Decisions] - “Case on Remedial Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)” in Unfair Dismissal Decisions - “Case on Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)” in Unfair Dismissal Decisions - “Case on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” in Unfair Dismissal Decisions [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expression of intent not reflecting true intent (voluntary resignation following notice of removal from team leader 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&. ※ The previous article, “Case on Disciplinary Severity (Workplace Bullying · Sexual Harassment) in Unfair Dismissal Decisions,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent not reflecting true intent (voluntary resignation following notice of removal from team leader position) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Expression of Intent Not Reflecting True Intent (Voluntary Resignation Following Notice of Removal from Team Leader Position).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article