[1] In a case where a worker submits a resignation and offers an offer for termination of an employment contract relationship, whether the employer may withdraw his/her offer before the employee reaches the employee’s expression of consent (affirmative with qualification)

[2] Whether an expression of intent to resign is deemed a notice of termination of a labor contract, unless there are special circumstances (affirmative), and in a case where an expression of intent to resign by notifying the termination of a labor contract reaches the employer, whether such expression of intent may be withdrawn (negative)

[1] In a case where a worker submits to resign and makes an offer for termination of an employment contract relationship, the employer’s consent is formed, and his/her expression of consent is withdrawn before the worker reaches the employee. However, such withdrawal is not allowed only in special circumstances deemed contrary to the good faith principle, such as where the withdrawal of the employee’s expression of intent is unexpected damages to the employer, etc.

[2] The declaration of intention to resign shall be deemed as the cancellation notice to the effect that the pertinent employment contract is terminated, barring any special circumstances, and as long as the declaration of intention to resign that is notified of the termination of the employment contract reaches the employer, the employee may not withdraw the declaration of intention to resign even before the expiration of the period under Article 660(3) of the Civil Code without the employer’

[1] Article 17 of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 111 and 543 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 17 of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 111 and 543 of the Civil Act, Article 660 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da43138 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1539), Supreme Court Decision 91Da43015 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 413), Supreme Court Decision 94Da14629 delivered on August 9, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2277)

Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Social Foundation

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu2715 delivered on June 24, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to whether there is any defect in the declaration of resignation

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor") was dismissed by the plaintiff's unilateral will, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff made a coercion to express his/her intent to resign, and on the other hand, it cannot be concluded that the preparation and submission of the written resignation is not based on the plaintiff's actual intention, considering the details of the submission of the written resignation, the contents of the written resignation, and the plaintiff's attitude related to the above written resignation, etc.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

2. As to the effective withdrawal of the intention to resign

The court below rejected the plaintiff's resignation on February 10, 197, when the intervenor worked as the president of the child-care center entrusted by the Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, Dong-gu, and Dong-gu, and the plaintiff expressed his intention of resignation on February 10, 1997, and made the non-party 1's child-care teacher's reputation before his parents of new admitted students, and intentionally made the birth of his father's parents' dignity while he was responsible for the direction of his father's staff, and was subject to disciplinary action (regument) from the intervenor. In addition, the plaintiff was ordered to be transferred to the two members of the child-care center who are scheduled to be operated as an annex to the social welfare center under the entrusted operation by the intervenor. The plaintiff's first attendance to the above social welfare center on the 18th day of the same month and submitted the plaintiff's resignation certificate on the 20th day of the same month on the 19th day of the same month, and the plaintiff's withdrawal of his employment contract by the non-party 2.

In a case where an employee presents his/her resignation to make an offer to terminate an employment contract relationship, the employer’s intention to consent is formed and the employee’s expression of consent reaches the employee, and such withdrawal is not allowed only in special circumstances deemed contrary to the good faith principle, such as where the employee’s withdrawal of his/her intention to resign causes unexpected damages to the employer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da43138, Apr. 10, 1992; 94Da14629, Aug. 9, 194).

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s declaration of resignation was invalid on the premise that the Plaintiff’s declaration of resignation was made after the Intervenor accepted the Plaintiff’s letter of resignation, on the condition that the intent of the employer’s acceptance of an offer to terminate an employment contract was finally and conclusive even at the stage that the other party did not reach the other party’s employee, and that the withdrawal of offer was no longer effective. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the withdrawal

However, barring any special circumstance, the declaration of intention to resign shall be deemed as the cancellation notice to the effect that the contract is terminated, and the contents of the written resignation, the motive and circumstance of the preparation and submission of the written resignation, the motive and reason for the withdrawal of the declaration of intention to resign, and other circumstances as shown in the facts and records confirmed by the court below, the submission of the written resignation by the plaintiff shall be deemed as notification of the termination of the contract in the above-mentioned basic form, and shall not be deemed as an offer for termination of the contract. In such a case, as long as the declaration of intention to resign has been delivered to the intervenor, the plaintiff may not withdraw the declaration of intention even before the expiration of the period stipulated in Article 660(3) of the Civil Act without the consent of the intervenor, so the decision of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the contract with the intervenor is still in

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. As to whether the transfer disposition is justifiable

In this case, as long as the lower court determined that the labor contract was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to resign and that the labor relationship with the Intervenor was terminated, the lower court need not determine the legitimacy of the Intervenor’s transfer order against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, we cannot accept the grounds of appeal that the court below neglected the judgment of the plaintiff's assertion that the intervenor abused and excluded the discretion of transfer disposition as an unfavorable disposition based on the same disciplinary cause, which is a double disciplinary action and abuse of discretion of transfer disposition, or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the transfer order.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)