Corporate trends / Performance record
Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Lapse of Exclusion Period (Unauthorized Departure · Content-Certified Mail)” (Unfair Dismissal 265)
- Date2026/03/07 04:13
- Read 220
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “lapse of exclusion period (unauthorized departure · content-certified mail).”
Adjudicating Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9075 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.15 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: In this case, the worker left the workplace without permission and did not receive wages thereafter, and even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, did not return to work, from which it could be inferred that the employment contract had already been terminated.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker left the workplace without permission and did not return for an extended period, and later filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission held that, in light of the fact that the worker did not receive wages and failed to return even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, it could be regarded that the employment contract had already been terminated.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “where a worker leaves the workplace without permission, does not receive wages, and, even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, fails to return to work, the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal can be deemed to have commenced from that point in time, and whether the application for remedy may be dismissed on the ground that such exclusion period has lapsed.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case held that, even though the employer did not serve a separate written notice of dismissal, given that the worker left the workplace without permission and did not receive wages, that the worker did not return to work even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, and that, based on these circumstances alone, the worker could fully recognize that the employment contract had been terminated, the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal had already elapsed as of the time the employment relationship ended.
Before examining whether the dismissal in this case was unfair, the panel found it appropriate to dismiss the application on procedural grounds due to the lapse of the exclusion period, on the basis that the three‑month exclusion period had run from the point in time when the termination of the employment contract was objectively recognizable, and the worker failed to file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission within that period, thus rendering a substantive determination on the unfairness of the dismissal unnecessary.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
If, after leaving the workplace, a worker’s wages are no longer paid and the worker receives a notice from the employer—such as by content-certified mail—from which the termination of the employment relationship can be inferred, the exclusion period (generally three months) for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be deemed to commence from that time. Accordingly, even in the absence of a formal written notice of dismissal, once circumstances arise in which one can objectively recognize that “it appears that the employment relationship with this company is no longer continuing,” the worker should promptly seek consultation from the Labor Relations Commission or experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Once the employment relationship has already been terminated, there may no longer be any substantial interest in restoring one’s status through unfair dismissal remedy procedures, and issues relating to wages, severance pay, and other monetary claims may have to be resolved through separate civil litigation. If unfair dismissal is suspected, it is important not to postpone action by thinking “I will wait and see a little longer” and thereby miss the exclusion period, but instead to secure evidence and promptly consider whether to file an application for remedy immediately after the relevant facts arise.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where a worker leaves the workplace without permission or is absent without leave for an extended period, the situation should not simply be left unattended; rather, the status of the employment contract should be clearly communicated by means such as content-certified mail, text messages, or email. By clearly recording the grounds and timing of the termination of the employment relationship, the employer can reduce unnecessary disputes before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts regarding the timing of the termination of the employment relationship, the starting point for calculating the exclusion period, and the existence of any interest in obtaining a remedy.
Furthermore, even where there is no workforce reduction such as a redundancy dismissal, if the employment relationship is effectively terminated on the grounds of unauthorized departure or prolonged absence, it is easy for the issue to arise as to whether the situation constitutes a dismissal or a de facto resignation/departure by the worker. Accordingly, it is advisable to clearly set out in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the standards for handling unauthorized absences and the procedures for dismissal and retirement, and to thoroughly document notifications and records in accordance with those provisions.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The worker in this case left the workplace without permission and did not receive wages thereafter, and, even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, did not return to work, from which it could be inferred that the employment contract had been terminated. Nevertheless, the worker failed to file an application for remedy within the prescribed period, and thus the exclusion period had lapsed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The worker in this case left the workplace without permission and did not receive wages thereafter, and, even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, did not return to work, from which it could be inferred that the employment contract had been terminated. Nevertheless, the worker failed to file an application for remedy within the prescribed period, and thus the exclusion period had lapsed. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract (Short-Term Contract Explicitly Stated)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, lapse of exclusion period (unauthorized departure · content-certified mail), unauthorized absence, 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 Case Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract (Short-Term Contract Explicitly Stated)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of case precedents relating to lapse of exclusion period (unauthorized departure · content-certified mail) can be viewed together in the “List of Case Precedents Relating to Lapse of Exclusion Period (Unauthorized Departure · Content-Certified Mail).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “lapse of exclusion period (unauthorized departure · content-certified mail).”
Adjudicating Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9075 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.15 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: In this case, the worker left the workplace without permission and did not receive wages thereafter, and even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, did not return to work, from which it could be inferred that the employment contract had already been terminated.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the worker left the workplace without permission and did not return for an extended period, and later filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission held that, in light of the fact that the worker did not receive wages and failed to return even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, it could be regarded that the employment contract had already been terminated.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “where a worker leaves the workplace without permission, does not receive wages, and, even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, fails to return to work, the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal can be deemed to have commenced from that point in time, and whether the application for remedy may be dismissed on the ground that such exclusion period has lapsed.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case held that, even though the employer did not serve a separate written notice of dismissal, given that the worker left the workplace without permission and did not receive wages, that the worker did not return to work even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, and that, based on these circumstances alone, the worker could fully recognize that the employment contract had been terminated, the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal had already elapsed as of the time the employment relationship ended.
Before examining whether the dismissal in this case was unfair, the panel found it appropriate to dismiss the application on procedural grounds due to the lapse of the exclusion period, on the basis that the three‑month exclusion period had run from the point in time when the termination of the employment contract was objectively recognizable, and the worker failed to file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission within that period, thus rendering a substantive determination on the unfairness of the dismissal unnecessary.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
If, after leaving the workplace, a worker’s wages are no longer paid and the worker receives a notice from the employer—such as by content-certified mail—from which the termination of the employment relationship can be inferred, the exclusion period (generally three months) for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be deemed to commence from that time. Accordingly, even in the absence of a formal written notice of dismissal, once circumstances arise in which one can objectively recognize that “it appears that the employment relationship with this company is no longer continuing,” the worker should promptly seek consultation from the Labor Relations Commission or experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Once the employment relationship has already been terminated, there may no longer be any substantial interest in restoring one’s status through unfair dismissal remedy procedures, and issues relating to wages, severance pay, and other monetary claims may have to be resolved through separate civil litigation. If unfair dismissal is suspected, it is important not to postpone action by thinking “I will wait and see a little longer” and thereby miss the exclusion period, but instead to secure evidence and promptly consider whether to file an application for remedy immediately after the relevant facts arise.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where a worker leaves the workplace without permission or is absent without leave for an extended period, the situation should not simply be left unattended; rather, the status of the employment contract should be clearly communicated by means such as content-certified mail, text messages, or email. By clearly recording the grounds and timing of the termination of the employment relationship, the employer can reduce unnecessary disputes before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts regarding the timing of the termination of the employment relationship, the starting point for calculating the exclusion period, and the existence of any interest in obtaining a remedy.
Furthermore, even where there is no workforce reduction such as a redundancy dismissal, if the employment relationship is effectively terminated on the grounds of unauthorized departure or prolonged absence, it is easy for the issue to arise as to whether the situation constitutes a dismissal or a de facto resignation/departure by the worker. Accordingly, it is advisable to clearly set out in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the standards for handling unauthorized absences and the procedures for dismissal and retirement, and to thoroughly document notifications and records in accordance with those provisions.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The worker in this case left the workplace without permission and did not receive wages thereafter, and, even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, did not return to work, from which it could be inferred that the employment contract had been terminated. Nevertheless, the worker failed to file an application for remedy within the prescribed period, and thus the exclusion period had lapsed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The worker in this case left the workplace without permission and did not receive wages thereafter, and, even after receiving content-certified mail from the employer, did not return to work, from which it could be inferred that the employment contract had been terminated. Nevertheless, the worker failed to file an application for remedy within the prescribed period, and thus the exclusion period had lapsed. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract (Short-Term Contract Explicitly Stated)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, lapse of exclusion period (unauthorized departure · content-certified mail), unauthorized absence, 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 Case Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract (Short-Term Contract Explicitly Stated)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of case precedents relating to lapse of exclusion period (unauthorized departure · content-certified mail) can be viewed together in the “List of Case Precedents Relating to Lapse of Exclusion Period (Unauthorized Departure · Content-Certified Mail).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
