Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Failure to Amend (Dismissal of Relief Application)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 266)
- Date2026/03/08 04:04
- Read 222
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally concluded by dismissal on the issue of “failure to amend (dismissal of relief application).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9448 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.01.14 · Case Type: Dismissal
Key Issue Summary: The grounds for the application were unclear, and the employee was requested more than twice to amend the relief application but 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 hearing. Accordingly, it was deemed that the employee no longer intended to pursue relief, and the case was found to fall under grounds for dismissal under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. However, because the grounds for the application stated in the written application were unclear, the employee was requested to amend the application and failed to respond, resulting in dismissal of the case. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission concluded the proceedings on the basis that the employee did not comply with more than two requests for amendment and did not submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing, thereby indicating that the employee no longer had the intention to pursue relief.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee who has filed an unfair dismissal relief application repeatedly fails to respond to the Labor Relations Commission’s requests for amendment and notices regarding the progress of the procedure, the Labor Relations Commission may dismiss the relief application pursuant to Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that it was difficult to conduct a lawful examination because the grounds for the application stated in the written application were unclear; that, although the employee had been requested more than twice to amend the contents of the relief application, no amendment was made; and that the employee did not submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing.
In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that it was difficult to regard the employee as continuing to have the intention to seek relief for unfair dismissal through the procedures of the Labor Relations Commission.
Before examining the legitimacy of the dismissal itself, the panel found that the employee’s relief application had reached a ground for dismissal under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore rendered a decision that the application was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to seek relief from unfair dismissal, it is not sufficient merely to submit an application; the employee must faithfully respond to the Labor Relations Commission’s requests for amendment and clarify the facts and the substance of the claims. In addition, if the employee fails to express any opinion regarding notices of appearance, omission of a hearing, or scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing, the application may be dismissed on the ground that the employee has abandoned the intention to seek relief. Employees should therefore carefully check all notices and respond within the prescribed deadlines.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to understand that, when determining whether to dismiss an application, the Labor Relations Commission first examines whether the application requirements and procedures have been satisfied. Accordingly, it is crucial to organize and submit the facts and evidence at an early stage of the case. However, even where, as in this case, the application is dismissed due to the employee’s failure to comply with procedural requirements, there may still be the possibility of a separate civil lawsuit or an additional relief application. Employers should therefore ensure in advance that the grounds and procedures for dismissal are sufficiently legitimate.
In this type of case, both employees and employers should accurately understand the grounds for dismissal and the requirements for a relief application under Article 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, and adopt as basic strategies “preparing an application with clear contents” and “timely responses to notices from the Labor Relations Commission.”
2. Decision Matters
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Because the grounds for the application were unclear, the employee was requested more than twice to amend the relief application but 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 hearing. Accordingly, it was deemed that the employee no longer intended to pursue relief, and the case was found to fall under grounds for dismissal under 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 Decision
Because the grounds for the application were unclear, the employee was requested more than twice to amend the relief application but 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 hearing. Accordingly, it was deemed that the employee no longer intended to pursue relief, and the case was found to fall under grounds for dismissal under 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 Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non-Formation of Conditional Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: - Case Type: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, failure to amend (dismissal of relief application), 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 “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Lapse of Exclusion Period (Unauthorized Absence · Content-Certified Mail)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to failure to amend (dismissal of relief application) can be found in the “Failure to Amend (Dismissal of Relief Application) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally concluded by dismissal on the issue of “failure to amend (dismissal of relief application).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9448 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.01.14 · Case Type: Dismissal
Key Issue Summary: The grounds for the application were unclear, and the employee was requested more than twice to amend the relief application but 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 hearing. Accordingly, it was deemed that the employee no longer intended to pursue relief, and the case was found to fall under grounds for dismissal under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. However, because the grounds for the application stated in the written application were unclear, the employee was requested to amend the application and failed to respond, resulting in dismissal of the case. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission concluded the proceedings on the basis that the employee did not comply with more than two requests for amendment and did not submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing, thereby indicating that the employee no longer had the intention to pursue relief.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee who has filed an unfair dismissal relief application repeatedly fails to respond to the Labor Relations Commission’s requests for amendment and notices regarding the progress of the procedure, the Labor Relations Commission may dismiss the relief application pursuant to Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that it was difficult to conduct a lawful examination because the grounds for the application stated in the written application were unclear; that, although the employee had been requested more than twice to amend the contents of the relief application, no amendment was made; and that the employee did not submit any opinion regarding the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing.
In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that it was difficult to regard the employee as continuing to have the intention to seek relief for unfair dismissal through the procedures of the Labor Relations Commission.
Before examining the legitimacy of the dismissal itself, the panel found that the employee’s relief application had reached a ground for dismissal under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore rendered a decision that the application was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to seek relief from unfair dismissal, it is not sufficient merely to submit an application; the employee must faithfully respond to the Labor Relations Commission’s requests for amendment and clarify the facts and the substance of the claims. In addition, if the employee fails to express any opinion regarding notices of appearance, omission of a hearing, or scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing, the application may be dismissed on the ground that the employee has abandoned the intention to seek relief. Employees should therefore carefully check all notices and respond within the prescribed deadlines.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to understand that, when determining whether to dismiss an application, the Labor Relations Commission first examines whether the application requirements and procedures have been satisfied. Accordingly, it is crucial to organize and submit the facts and evidence at an early stage of the case. However, even where, as in this case, the application is dismissed due to the employee’s failure to comply with procedural requirements, there may still be the possibility of a separate civil lawsuit or an additional relief application. Employers should therefore ensure in advance that the grounds and procedures for dismissal are sufficiently legitimate.
In this type of case, both employees and employers should accurately understand the grounds for dismissal and the requirements for a relief application under Article 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, and adopt as basic strategies “preparing an application with clear contents” and “timely responses to notices from the Labor Relations Commission.”
2. Decision Matters
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Because the grounds for the application were unclear, the employee was requested more than twice to amend the relief application but 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 hearing. Accordingly, it was deemed that the employee no longer intended to pursue relief, and the case was found to fall under grounds for dismissal under 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 Decision
Because the grounds for the application were unclear, the employee was requested more than twice to amend the relief application but 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 hearing. Accordingly, it was deemed that the employee no longer intended to pursue relief, and the case was found to fall under grounds for dismissal under 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 Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non-Formation of Conditional Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision Date: - Case Type: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, failure to amend (dismissal of relief application), 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 “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Lapse of Exclusion Period (Unauthorized Absence · Content-Certified Mail)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to failure to amend (dismissal of relief application) can be found in the “Failure to Amend (Dismissal of Relief Application) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
