Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Dismissal (Non-Compliance with Correction Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 211)
- Date2026/02/17 04:13
- Read 212
This case on the issue of “dismissal (non-compliance with correction order)” was procedurally dismissed without a decision on the merits.
[Case Information]
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9259 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.11 · Case type: Dismissal (procedural)
Summary of key issue: The Labor Relations Commission issued two or more correction orders in relation to the employee’s application for remedy, but the employee did not comply. The employee also failed to submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner decision. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer intended to pursue the remedy application, and held that the case fell under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. However, the application was dismissed because the employee failed to correct procedural defects. The Commission issued the employee two or more correction orders and notified the employee of the omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner decision, yet the employee submitted no opinion or materials in response. On this basis, the Commission determined that the employee no longer had the intention to pursue the remedy application. Consequently, without reaching the substantive issue of whether the dismissal was unfair, the case was dismissed on procedural grounds pursuant to Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to respond to repeated correction orders and procedural guidance from the Labor Relations Commission, it can still be considered that the employee intends to pursue the application, or whether the case falls under the grounds for dismissal under the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel found that the Labor Relations Commission had issued two or more correction orders regarding defects in the application for remedy, but the employee did not make any corrections; that the employee did not submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner decision; and that Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides for dismissal where a party fails to comply with a correction order. In light of these circumstances, the panel concluded that the employee no longer wished to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Regardless of whether the dismissal itself was substantively justified, the panel held that the application for remedy fell under the grounds for dismissal under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore dismissed the case on procedural grounds without a decision on the merits.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Once an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee must respond within the prescribed deadlines to any correction orders, attendance notices, or hearing-related guidance from the Labor Relations Commission, and submit any required materials. In particular, Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission expressly provides that “where two or more correction orders have been issued and the correction has not been made,” this constitutes a ground for dismissal. If it is difficult to prepare the necessary documents, the employee should at least ensure that they respond to the correction orders, with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& if necessary.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even if an employee’s application for remedy is dismissed because the employee passively participates in the procedure after filing, this should not be misunderstood as meaning that the dismissal has been substantively recognized as justified. However, materials and arguments submitted by the company during the Commission’s review of whether to dismiss the case may remain on record. Accordingly, from the initial stage, employers should clearly organize the facts and grounds for dismissal, and prepare to systematically substantiate the necessity of personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals and compliance with procedural requirements.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The Labor Relations Commission issued two or more correction orders in relation to the employee’s application for remedy, but the employee did not comply. The employee also failed to submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner decision. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer intended to pursue the application for remedy, and held that the case fell under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission issued two or more correction orders in relation to the employee’s application for remedy, but the employee did not comply. The employee also failed to submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner decision. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer intended to pursue the application for remedy, and held that the case fell under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case type: Dismissal
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case type: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (non-compliance with correction order), 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, “‘Expression of Intention to Resign in a Handwritten Resignation Letter’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to dismissal (non-compliance with correction order) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Non-Compliance with Correction Order)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9259 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.11 · Case type: Dismissal (procedural)
Summary of key issue: The Labor Relations Commission issued two or more correction orders in relation to the employee’s application for remedy, but the employee did not comply. The employee also failed to submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner decision. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer intended to pursue the remedy application, and held that the case fell under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. However, the application was dismissed because the employee failed to correct procedural defects. The Commission issued the employee two or more correction orders and notified the employee of the omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner decision, yet the employee submitted no opinion or materials in response. On this basis, the Commission determined that the employee no longer had the intention to pursue the remedy application. Consequently, without reaching the substantive issue of whether the dismissal was unfair, the case was dismissed on procedural grounds pursuant to Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to respond to repeated correction orders and procedural guidance from the Labor Relations Commission, it can still be considered that the employee intends to pursue the application, or whether the case falls under the grounds for dismissal under the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel found that the Labor Relations Commission had issued two or more correction orders regarding defects in the application for remedy, but the employee did not make any corrections; that the employee did not submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner decision; and that Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides for dismissal where a party fails to comply with a correction order. In light of these circumstances, the panel concluded that the employee no longer wished to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Regardless of whether the dismissal itself was substantively justified, the panel held that the application for remedy fell under the grounds for dismissal under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore dismissed the case on procedural grounds without a decision on the merits.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Once an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee must respond within the prescribed deadlines to any correction orders, attendance notices, or hearing-related guidance from the Labor Relations Commission, and submit any required materials. In particular, Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission expressly provides that “where two or more correction orders have been issued and the correction has not been made,” this constitutes a ground for dismissal. If it is difficult to prepare the necessary documents, the employee should at least ensure that they respond to the correction orders, with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& if necessary.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even if an employee’s application for remedy is dismissed because the employee passively participates in the procedure after filing, this should not be misunderstood as meaning that the dismissal has been substantively recognized as justified. However, materials and arguments submitted by the company during the Commission’s review of whether to dismiss the case may remain on record. Accordingly, from the initial stage, employers should clearly organize the facts and grounds for dismissal, and prepare to systematically substantiate the necessity of personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals and compliance with procedural requirements.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The Labor Relations Commission issued two or more correction orders in relation to the employee’s application for remedy, but the employee did not comply. The employee also failed to submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner decision. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer intended to pursue the application for remedy, and held that the case fell under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission issued two or more correction orders in relation to the employee’s application for remedy, but the employee did not comply. The employee also failed to submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner decision. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer intended to pursue the application for remedy, and held that the case fell under the grounds for dismissal set out in Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case type: Dismissal
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - · Case type: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal (non-compliance with correction order), 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, “‘Expression of Intention to Resign in a Handwritten Resignation Letter’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to dismissal (non-compliance with correction order) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal (Non-Compliance with Correction Order)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
