Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Dismissal (Correction Order · Non-Appearance)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 161)
- Date2026/01/30 04:09
- Read 233
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “dismissal (correction order · non-appearance).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae929 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.18 · Case Type: Dismissal
Summary of Key Issue: As the employee, without justifiable reason, failed to comply with more than two requests from the Labor Relations Commission to correct the purport of the application and also failed to appear at the hearing without justifiable reason, it was determined that the employee had no intention to proceed with the remedy application. Accordingly, the case falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 and 7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. However, the case was dismissed because the employee failed to comply with the Commission’s requests to correct the application and failed to appear at the hearing. Relying on Article 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission concluded that the employee no longer intended to pursue the remedy application and closed the case.
Ⅱ. Summary of the Issue
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to comply with repeated requests from the Labor Relations Commission to correct the purport of the application and to appear at the hearing, may the Commission dismiss the case without a decision on the merits?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case held that, despite having requested the employee to correct the purport of the application on more than two occasions, the employee failed to comply without justifiable reason, and also failed to appear at the hearing without justifiable reason. In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the employee had no intention to proceed with the remedy application. Therefore, the case fell under Article 60(1)2 (failure to comply with correction order) and Article 60(1)7 (deemed abandonment of application due to repeated non-appearance, etc.) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Before examining whether the dismissal in this case was justified, the Commission determined that the application for remedy did not satisfy the procedural requirements and therefore rendered a decision of dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Once an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it must be borne in mind that the Commission’s correction orders and appearance requirements are not “optional,” but essential procedures to maintain the validity of the application. If, without justifiable reason, the employee fails to comply with a correction order or fails to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions, the application may be dismissed regardless of whether the dismissal was substantively unfair, resulting in the loss of an opportunity for relief. Employees should therefore carefully review all notices and respond faithfully within the specified deadlines.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, it is important to understand procedurally that, after an employee files an application for remedy, the case may be dismissed if the employee fails to comply with the Commission’s correction orders or appearance requirements. However, such a dismissal is merely a termination of the case due to “defects in the application requirements” and does not constitute a finding that the dismissal was justified. Accordingly, employers should consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to simultaneously review and improve their HR and disciplinary procedures in preparation for similar or related disputes in the future.
This decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the parties must faithfully comply with the procedures of the Labor Relations Commission in order to obtain a decision on the merits, and it shows how the dismissal grounds under Article 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission are actually applied in practice. Those preparing for the Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures are advised to seek assistance from professional organizations such as Labor Law Firm Law& so that everything from drafting the application to fulfilling correction and appearance obligations can be managed systematically.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
As the employee, without justifiable reason, failed to comply with more than two requests from the Labor Relations Commission to correct the purport of the application and also failed to appear at the hearing without justifiable reason, it was determined that the employee had no intention to proceed with the remedy application. Accordingly, the case falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 and 7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
As the employee, without justifiable reason, failed to comply with more than two requests from the Labor Relations Commission to correct the purport of the application and also failed to appear at the hearing without justifiable reason, it was determined that the employee had no intention to proceed with the remedy application. Accordingly, the case falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 and 7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: - Case Type: Dismissal
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (correction order · non-appearance), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Reassignment (Transfer from Office Building to Factory Building within the Same Workplace)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to dismissal (correction order · non-appearance) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Correction Order · Non-Appearance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “dismissal (correction order · non-appearance).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae929 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.18 · Case Type: Dismissal
Summary of Key Issue: As the employee, without justifiable reason, failed to comply with more than two requests from the Labor Relations Commission to correct the purport of the application and also failed to appear at the hearing without justifiable reason, it was determined that the employee had no intention to proceed with the remedy application. Accordingly, the case falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 and 7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. However, the case was dismissed because the employee failed to comply with the Commission’s requests to correct the application and failed to appear at the hearing. Relying on Article 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission concluded that the employee no longer intended to pursue the remedy application and closed the case.
Ⅱ. Summary of the Issue
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to comply with repeated requests from the Labor Relations Commission to correct the purport of the application and to appear at the hearing, may the Commission dismiss the case without a decision on the merits?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case held that, despite having requested the employee to correct the purport of the application on more than two occasions, the employee failed to comply without justifiable reason, and also failed to appear at the hearing without justifiable reason. In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the employee had no intention to proceed with the remedy application. Therefore, the case fell under Article 60(1)2 (failure to comply with correction order) and Article 60(1)7 (deemed abandonment of application due to repeated non-appearance, etc.) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Before examining whether the dismissal in this case was justified, the Commission determined that the application for remedy did not satisfy the procedural requirements and therefore rendered a decision of dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Once an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it must be borne in mind that the Commission’s correction orders and appearance requirements are not “optional,” but essential procedures to maintain the validity of the application. If, without justifiable reason, the employee fails to comply with a correction order or fails to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions, the application may be dismissed regardless of whether the dismissal was substantively unfair, resulting in the loss of an opportunity for relief. Employees should therefore carefully review all notices and respond faithfully within the specified deadlines.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, it is important to understand procedurally that, after an employee files an application for remedy, the case may be dismissed if the employee fails to comply with the Commission’s correction orders or appearance requirements. However, such a dismissal is merely a termination of the case due to “defects in the application requirements” and does not constitute a finding that the dismissal was justified. Accordingly, employers should consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to simultaneously review and improve their HR and disciplinary procedures in preparation for similar or related disputes in the future.
This decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the parties must faithfully comply with the procedures of the Labor Relations Commission in order to obtain a decision on the merits, and it shows how the dismissal grounds under Article 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission are actually applied in practice. Those preparing for the Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures are advised to seek assistance from professional organizations such as Labor Law Firm Law& so that everything from drafting the application to fulfilling correction and appearance obligations can be managed systematically.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
As the employee, without justifiable reason, failed to comply with more than two requests from the Labor Relations Commission to correct the purport of the application and also failed to appear at the hearing without justifiable reason, it was determined that the employee had no intention to proceed with the remedy application. Accordingly, the case falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 and 7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
As the employee, without justifiable reason, failed to comply with more than two requests from the Labor Relations Commission to correct the purport of the application and also failed to appear at the hearing without justifiable reason, it was determined that the employee had no intention to proceed with the remedy application. Accordingly, the case falls under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 and 7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: - Case Type: Dismissal
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (correction order · non-appearance), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Reassignment (Transfer from Office Building to Factory Building within the Same Workplace)’-Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to dismissal (correction order · non-appearance) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Correction Order · Non-Appearance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
