Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Defect in Written Notice (Insufficient Dismissal Notice)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 121)
- Date2026/01/18 04:04
- Read 216
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defect in written notice (insufficient dismissal notice).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae811 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.14 · Case Result: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues: There was a serious procedural defect in that the employer failed to properly fulfill the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (Written Notice of Reasons for Dismissal, etc.), and the substantive reasons for dismissal were not objectively proven. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize a just cause under social norms, meaning that substantive justification is also lacking, and therefore the dismissal is unfair.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose from an employer’s failure, when dismissing an employee, to comply with the obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined both whether there was a serious defect in the dismissal procedure and whether the reasons for dismissal asserted by the employer were substantiated by objective evidence.
The Labor Relations Commission concluded that justification was lacking in both the procedural and substantive requirements, and therefore fully granted the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a dismissal is valid where the employer failed to satisfy the written notice requirements under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and also failed to sufficiently prove the substantive reasons for dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer did not properly notify the employee, at the time of dismissal, by means of a written document stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal; that it is not permissible to cure such procedural defects by supplementing the written notice after the dismissal; and that the reasons for dismissal asserted by the employer were not proven by objective evidence and thus could not be regarded as reasons so serious that the employment relationship could not be maintained under social norms.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case lacked both procedural and substantive justification and constituted an unfair dismissal.
[Supplementary Explanation of Legal Principles – Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning]
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the effect of a dismissal arises only when the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal are notified “in writing.” This is a formal requirement intended to clarify disputes surrounding dismissals and to restrain employers from making emotional or impulsive dismissal decisions. The written notice must specify the facts to such an extent that the employee can concretely understand “for what reason and as of when” they are being dismissed; it is insufficient merely to list the provisions of the disciplinary regulations.
In addition to the mere existence of reasons for dismissal, the core criteria for assessing substantive justification are (i) whether those reasons are so serious that, under social norms, it is difficult to continue the employment relationship, and (ii) whether such reasons are proven by objective evidence. In this case, the Commission found that these criteria were not met.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee is notified of dismissal but does not receive a written document specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, it is necessary to examine whether this, in itself, constitutes a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. The employee should also bear in mind that, before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, they can contest whether the reasons asserted by the employer actually exist and whether those reasons are so serious, under social norms, as to justify dismissal.
In similar situations, it is advisable to promptly organize and secure information such as the circumstances of the dismissal notice, the contents of any documents received, and conversations or emails before and after the dismissal, and then consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, before deciding on dismissal, it is essential to prepare a written notice form that complies with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and to ensure that the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal are specifically stated and lawfully delivered to the employee. In particular, in cases of disciplinary dismissal, it is not sufficient merely to list the provisions of the work rules; specific details of the misconduct, including the facts, dates, and circumstances, must be stated so that the employee can exercise their right to defend themselves.
Furthermore, if dismissal is carried out without first sufficiently securing objective evidence (documents, electronic records, personnel data, etc.) that the reasons for dismissal actually exist, there is a high risk—just as in this case—of a finding of unfair dismissal on both procedural and substantive grounds. Therefore, employers should seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& on a case-by-case basis before taking action.
2. Decision
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
There was a serious procedural defect in that the employer failed to properly fulfill the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (Written Notice of Reasons for Dismissal, etc.), and the substantive reasons for dismissal were not objectively proven. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize a just cause under social norms, meaning that substantive justification is also lacking, and therefore the dismissal is unfair.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
There was a serious procedural defect in that the employer failed to properly fulfill the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (Written Notice of Reasons for Dismissal, etc.), and the substantive reasons for dismissal were not objectively proven. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize a just cause under social norms, meaning that substantive justification is also lacking, and therefore the dismissal is unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (insufficient dismissal notice), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Refusal to Confirm Regular Employment After Probation (Probation Evaluation Score 46)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to defect in written notice (insufficient dismissal notice) at the “List of Decisions Related to Defect in Written Notice (Insufficient Dismissal Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defect in written notice (insufficient dismissal notice).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae811 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.14 · Case Result: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues: There was a serious procedural defect in that the employer failed to properly fulfill the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (Written Notice of Reasons for Dismissal, etc.), and the substantive reasons for dismissal were not objectively proven. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize a just cause under social norms, meaning that substantive justification is also lacking, and therefore the dismissal is unfair.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose from an employer’s failure, when dismissing an employee, to comply with the obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined both whether there was a serious defect in the dismissal procedure and whether the reasons for dismissal asserted by the employer were substantiated by objective evidence.
The Labor Relations Commission concluded that justification was lacking in both the procedural and substantive requirements, and therefore fully granted the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a dismissal is valid where the employer failed to satisfy the written notice requirements under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and also failed to sufficiently prove the substantive reasons for dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer did not properly notify the employee, at the time of dismissal, by means of a written document stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal; that it is not permissible to cure such procedural defects by supplementing the written notice after the dismissal; and that the reasons for dismissal asserted by the employer were not proven by objective evidence and thus could not be regarded as reasons so serious that the employment relationship could not be maintained under social norms.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case lacked both procedural and substantive justification and constituted an unfair dismissal.
[Supplementary Explanation of Legal Principles – Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning]
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the effect of a dismissal arises only when the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal are notified “in writing.” This is a formal requirement intended to clarify disputes surrounding dismissals and to restrain employers from making emotional or impulsive dismissal decisions. The written notice must specify the facts to such an extent that the employee can concretely understand “for what reason and as of when” they are being dismissed; it is insufficient merely to list the provisions of the disciplinary regulations.
In addition to the mere existence of reasons for dismissal, the core criteria for assessing substantive justification are (i) whether those reasons are so serious that, under social norms, it is difficult to continue the employment relationship, and (ii) whether such reasons are proven by objective evidence. In this case, the Commission found that these criteria were not met.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If an employee is notified of dismissal but does not receive a written document specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, it is necessary to examine whether this, in itself, constitutes a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. The employee should also bear in mind that, before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, they can contest whether the reasons asserted by the employer actually exist and whether those reasons are so serious, under social norms, as to justify dismissal.
In similar situations, it is advisable to promptly organize and secure information such as the circumstances of the dismissal notice, the contents of any documents received, and conversations or emails before and after the dismissal, and then consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, before deciding on dismissal, it is essential to prepare a written notice form that complies with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and to ensure that the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal are specifically stated and lawfully delivered to the employee. In particular, in cases of disciplinary dismissal, it is not sufficient merely to list the provisions of the work rules; specific details of the misconduct, including the facts, dates, and circumstances, must be stated so that the employee can exercise their right to defend themselves.
Furthermore, if dismissal is carried out without first sufficiently securing objective evidence (documents, electronic records, personnel data, etc.) that the reasons for dismissal actually exist, there is a high risk—just as in this case—of a finding of unfair dismissal on both procedural and substantive grounds. Therefore, employers should seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& on a case-by-case basis before taking action.
2. Decision
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
There was a serious procedural defect in that the employer failed to properly fulfill the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (Written Notice of Reasons for Dismissal, etc.), and the substantive reasons for dismissal were not objectively proven. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize a just cause under social norms, meaning that substantive justification is also lacking, and therefore the dismissal is unfair.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
There was a serious procedural defect in that the employer failed to properly fulfill the obligation of written notice prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (Written Notice of Reasons for Dismissal, etc.), and the substantive reasons for dismissal were not objectively proven. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize a just cause under social norms, meaning that substantive justification is also lacking, and therefore the dismissal is unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Number: Dismissed
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (insufficient dismissal notice), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Refusal to Confirm Regular Employment After Probation (Probation Evaluation Score 46)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to defect in written notice (insufficient dismissal notice) at the “List of Decisions Related to Defect in Written Notice (Insufficient Dismissal Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
