Corporate trends / Performance record
Wrongful Dismissal Case Concerning the Existence of a Dismissal (KakaoTalk / Verbal Notice) (Wrongful Dismissal 1) (Unfair Dismissal 181)
- Date2026/02/06 04:06
- Read 224
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of whether a dismissal existed (KakaoTalk / verbal notice).
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Wrongful Dismissal 9101 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.16 · Case Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of Key Issues: A.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this wrongful dismissal case, the core issue before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission was whether the termination of the employment relationship between the employer and the employee was a resignation or a dismissal. Following a work-related dispute, the employee asserted that he had been dismissed, relying on the employer’s verbal and telephone notice to the effect of “don’t come in” and the employer’s implicit acknowledgment of a KakaoTalk message. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the employee had first notified the employer of his resignation. The dispute structure is similar to cases in which Labor Law Firm Law& has been involved.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where emotional remarks were made during a work-related dispute and subsequent telephone notices and KakaoTalk messages were exchanged, the cause of termination of the employment relationship was the employee’s voluntary resignation or the employer’s unilateral intention to dismiss, and if it constitutes a dismissal, whether it amounts to wrongful dismissal due to a violation of the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that the employer did not follow the procedures for redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal based on managerial necessity or disciplinary grounds. Instead, the panel noted that: on July 29, 2025, during the dispute, the employer told the employee words to the effect of “quit”; the next day, the employer again notified the employee by telephone not to come in; on August 1, 2025, the employee sent a KakaoTalk message to the employer stating, “Since you told me not to come in, I will understand it that way,” yet the employer neither denied this nor requested that the employee report to work; at the hearing, the employer himself testified that he had told the employee to “quit”; and despite this, the employer failed to present any objective evidence capable of proving the employee’s voluntary resignation.
In light of the above, the panel determined that the cause of termination of the employment relationship was not the employee’s resignation but a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intention.
The dismissal in this case also suffered from a procedural defect in that the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. The panel therefore found that the formal requirements under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act had not been satisfied, and accordingly held that the employer’s dismissal was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee in fact intends to continue working but, after being told by the employer to “quit” or “don’t come in,” is effectively prevented from reporting to work, it is extremely important to clearly preserve, via KakaoTalk, text messages, call logs, etc., both the employee’s own intention and the content of the employer’s notice. In particular, how the employer responds to a confirmation message to the effect of “Since you told me not to come in, I will understand it that way” can serve as key evidence in determining whether the termination was a resignation or a dismissal. Employees should therefore record and preserve the specific circumstances at the time as concretely as possible.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer / Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it must be borne in mind that once expressions such as “quit” or “don’t come in” are used in an emotionally charged situation, they may be legally construed as a manifestation of intent to dismiss, regardless of the employer’s actual subjective intention. If there is a need to terminate the employment relationship, the employer should first clearly identify the legal nature of the termination—whether it is a dismissal, a resignation, or a mutual termination. If it constitutes a dismissal, the employer must ensure that there is a just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and must provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal in accordance with Article 27, following the proper procedures.
In this type of case, it is crucial for both employers and employees to clearly understand that the just cause required and the procedures to be followed differ depending on the cause of termination of the employment relationship, and that the availability of remedies for wrongful dismissal hinges on this distinction.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of a Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment relationship ended because the employee notified the employer of his resignation on July 29, 2025. However, considering that: (①) the employee appears to have intended to continue working at the time of the work-related dispute on July 29, 2025; (②) the employee consistently testified that on July 30, 2025, he again received a telephone notice from the employer not to come in; (③) it was confirmed that on August 1, 2025, the employee sent a KakaoTalk message to the employer stating, “Since you told me not to come in, I will understand it that way,” and there is no indication that the employer responded with any rebuttal or instructed the employee to report to work; (④) at the hearing, the employer acknowledged in his testimony that he had told the employee to quit on July 29, 2025; and (⑤) although the employer claimed that the employment relationship ended due to the employee’s resignation, the employer failed to present any objective evidence to prove this—
the panel concluded that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by way of dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intention.
b. Legitimacy of the Dismissal (Reasons and Procedure)
There was a procedural defect in that, when dismissing the employee, the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Existence of a Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment relationship ended because the employee notified the employer of his resignation on July 29, 2025. However, considering that: (①) the employee appears to have intended to continue working at the time of the work-related dispute on July 29, 2025; (②) the employee consistently testified that on July 30, 2025, he again received a telephone notice from the employer not to come in; (③) it was confirmed that on August 1, 2025, the employee sent a KakaoTalk message to the employer stating, “Since you told me not to come in, I will understand it that way,” and there is no indication that the employer responded with any rebuttal or instructed the employee to report to work; (④) at the hearing, the employer acknowledged in his testimony that he had told the employee to quit on July 29, 2025; and (⑤) although the employer claimed that the employment relationship ended due to the employee’s resignation, the employer failed to present any objective evidence to prove this—
the panel concluded that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by way of dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intention.
b. Legitimacy of the Dismissal (Reasons and Procedure)
There was a procedural defect in that, when dismissing the employee, the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.
/
[More Related Decisions]
- “Wrongful Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Wrongful Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case Outcome: Initial Decision Upheld
- “Wrongful Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Wrongful dismissal, existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk / verbal 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 part of the “Wrongful Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Wrongful Dismissal Decision Concerning Poor Attendance / Non-Compliance with Work Instructions (Failure to Use Seat QR Tag),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions concerning the existence of a dismissal (KakaoTalk / verbal notice) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Concerning Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk / Verbal Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of whether a dismissal existed (KakaoTalk / verbal notice).
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Wrongful Dismissal 9101 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.16 · Case Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of Key Issues: A.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this wrongful dismissal case, the core issue before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission was whether the termination of the employment relationship between the employer and the employee was a resignation or a dismissal. Following a work-related dispute, the employee asserted that he had been dismissed, relying on the employer’s verbal and telephone notice to the effect of “don’t come in” and the employer’s implicit acknowledgment of a KakaoTalk message. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the employee had first notified the employer of his resignation. The dispute structure is similar to cases in which Labor Law Firm Law& has been involved.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where emotional remarks were made during a work-related dispute and subsequent telephone notices and KakaoTalk messages were exchanged, the cause of termination of the employment relationship was the employee’s voluntary resignation or the employer’s unilateral intention to dismiss, and if it constitutes a dismissal, whether it amounts to wrongful dismissal due to a violation of the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that the employer did not follow the procedures for redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal based on managerial necessity or disciplinary grounds. Instead, the panel noted that: on July 29, 2025, during the dispute, the employer told the employee words to the effect of “quit”; the next day, the employer again notified the employee by telephone not to come in; on August 1, 2025, the employee sent a KakaoTalk message to the employer stating, “Since you told me not to come in, I will understand it that way,” yet the employer neither denied this nor requested that the employee report to work; at the hearing, the employer himself testified that he had told the employee to “quit”; and despite this, the employer failed to present any objective evidence capable of proving the employee’s voluntary resignation.
In light of the above, the panel determined that the cause of termination of the employment relationship was not the employee’s resignation but a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intention.
The dismissal in this case also suffered from a procedural defect in that the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. The panel therefore found that the formal requirements under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act had not been satisfied, and accordingly held that the employer’s dismissal was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee in fact intends to continue working but, after being told by the employer to “quit” or “don’t come in,” is effectively prevented from reporting to work, it is extremely important to clearly preserve, via KakaoTalk, text messages, call logs, etc., both the employee’s own intention and the content of the employer’s notice. In particular, how the employer responds to a confirmation message to the effect of “Since you told me not to come in, I will understand it that way” can serve as key evidence in determining whether the termination was a resignation or a dismissal. Employees should therefore record and preserve the specific circumstances at the time as concretely as possible.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer / Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it must be borne in mind that once expressions such as “quit” or “don’t come in” are used in an emotionally charged situation, they may be legally construed as a manifestation of intent to dismiss, regardless of the employer’s actual subjective intention. If there is a need to terminate the employment relationship, the employer should first clearly identify the legal nature of the termination—whether it is a dismissal, a resignation, or a mutual termination. If it constitutes a dismissal, the employer must ensure that there is a just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and must provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal in accordance with Article 27, following the proper procedures.
In this type of case, it is crucial for both employers and employees to clearly understand that the just cause required and the procedures to be followed differ depending on the cause of termination of the employment relationship, and that the availability of remedies for wrongful dismissal hinges on this distinction.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of a Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment relationship ended because the employee notified the employer of his resignation on July 29, 2025. However, considering that: (①) the employee appears to have intended to continue working at the time of the work-related dispute on July 29, 2025; (②) the employee consistently testified that on July 30, 2025, he again received a telephone notice from the employer not to come in; (③) it was confirmed that on August 1, 2025, the employee sent a KakaoTalk message to the employer stating, “Since you told me not to come in, I will understand it that way,” and there is no indication that the employer responded with any rebuttal or instructed the employee to report to work; (④) at the hearing, the employer acknowledged in his testimony that he had told the employee to quit on July 29, 2025; and (⑤) although the employer claimed that the employment relationship ended due to the employee’s resignation, the employer failed to present any objective evidence to prove this—
the panel concluded that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by way of dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intention.
b. Legitimacy of the Dismissal (Reasons and Procedure)
There was a procedural defect in that, when dismissing the employee, the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Existence of a Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment relationship ended because the employee notified the employer of his resignation on July 29, 2025. However, considering that: (①) the employee appears to have intended to continue working at the time of the work-related dispute on July 29, 2025; (②) the employee consistently testified that on July 30, 2025, he again received a telephone notice from the employer not to come in; (③) it was confirmed that on August 1, 2025, the employee sent a KakaoTalk message to the employer stating, “Since you told me not to come in, I will understand it that way,” and there is no indication that the employer responded with any rebuttal or instructed the employee to report to work; (④) at the hearing, the employer acknowledged in his testimony that he had told the employee to quit on July 29, 2025; and (⑤) although the employer claimed that the employment relationship ended due to the employee’s resignation, the employer failed to present any objective evidence to prove this—
the panel concluded that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by way of dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intention.
b. Legitimacy of the Dismissal (Reasons and Procedure)
There was a procedural defect in that, when dismissing the employee, the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.
/
[More Related Decisions]
- “Wrongful Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Wrongful Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case Outcome: Initial Decision Upheld
- “Wrongful Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Wrongful dismissal, existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk / verbal 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 part of the “Wrongful Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Wrongful Dismissal Decision Concerning Poor Attendance / Non-Compliance with Work Instructions (Failure to Use Seat QR Tag),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions concerning the existence of a dismissal (KakaoTalk / verbal notice) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Concerning Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk / Verbal Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
