Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Existence of Dismissal (Post‑Interview Text Message)” (Unfair Dismissal 347)
- Date2026/04/05 04:04
- Read 179
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first-instance decision on the issue of “existence of dismissal (post‑interview text message).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae1723 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.24 · Result: First‑instance decision upheld
Key issue summary: The employee in 2025 …
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, alleging that the employer had unfairly dismissed him. However, the Central Labor Relations Commission found that no dismissal itself existed and ruled in favor of the employer. Based on the question of whether an unfair dismissal occurred, the decision structure of the Labor Relations Commission, and the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, we will整理 how to prevent and respond to similar disputes.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether unfair dismissal can be established “where, after an interview, the employee left the workplace, stopped reporting to work, and even sent a text message of thanks, but the employer did not separately give any notice of dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that, after an interview with Executive Director Kim ○○ on 12 May 2025, the employee left the workplace and did not return to work; that immediately after the interview he sent the employer a text message to the effect of “Thank you for everything so far, and I will somehow repay the help you have given me”; and that he continued to be absent without expressing any intention to resume work or return.
In light of these facts, the panel found that the employee appeared to have had an intention to resign or leave the company; that the company, also viewing the employee as having no intention of returning to work, processed the loss of his social insurance coverage only around 26 May, two weeks later; and that in the complaint filed with the Seongnam District Office alleging a violation of Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act (advance notice of dismissal), the matter was administratively closed on the ground that “it is not possible to objectively prove that a dismissal in fact occurred.”
Taking all of the above into account, the panel held that no dismissal existed in this case and that it was therefore appropriate to dismiss the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If, after an interview, an employee leaves the workplace in an emotional state and then is absent without leave for an extended period, the Labor Relations Commission may deny that any dismissal occurred if there is insufficient objective evidence, even if the employee later claims, “I was dismissed at that time.” To assert a dismissal, the employee must secure specific notice of dismissal (text message, email, personnel document, recording, etc.) or other materials supporting the employer’s unilateral intention to terminate the employment relationship.
In addition, even if the employee feels that remarks made during a meeting with a superior implied dismissal, it is crucial for subsequent unfair dismissal proceedings to immediately make a recording or memo, and to send a content-certified letter or other written inquiry requesting that the employer “clearly confirm whether I have been dismissed.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where an employee leaves the workplace of his own accord after an interview or fails to report to work for an extended period, it becomes easier to prove “non‑existence of dismissal” in an unfair dismissal dispute if the circumstances and content of the interview are clearly recorded in interview notes, text messages, emails, and the like. In particular, the timing and reason for processing the loss of social insurance coverage (voluntary resignation, unauthorized absence, etc.) should be objectively documented through the internal approval process.
Furthermore, during HR processes and interviews, expressions such as “you should quit” or “let’s let you go,” which may be misunderstood as dismissal, should be avoided as much as possible. Even when an employee chooses to resign voluntarily, it is essential to obtain clear documentation such as a written resignation letter or an email confirming the employee’s intention to resign, as this is key to preventing future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee, after an interview with Executive Director Kim ○○ on 12 May 2025, (i) left the workplace and thereafter did not report to the company; (ii) sent the employer a text message stating, “Thank you for everything so far, and I will somehow repay the help you have given me”; (iii) continued not to report to the company even after sending that text message; (iv) appears to have had his social insurance coverage terminated only on 26 May 2025, when the employer concluded that he had no intention of returning to work; and (v) in the complaint filed with the Seongnam District Office against the company for violation of Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act (advance notice of dismissal), the case was administratively closed on the ground that “it is not possible to objectively prove that a dismissal in fact occurred.”
Considering all of the above, apart from the employee’s assertion that Executive Director Kim ○○ and CEO Park Hyeong‑guk of the company dismissed him, there is no evidence to support that claim, and therefore no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
After an interview with Executive Director Kim ○○ on 12 May 2025, (i) the employee left the workplace and thereafter did not report to the company; (ii) he sent the employer a text message stating, “Thank you for everything so far, and I will somehow repay the help you have given me”; (iii) he continued not to report to the company even after sending that text message; (iv) it appears that the employer, having concluded that the employee had no intention of returning to work, processed the loss of his social insurance coverage only on 26 May 2025; and (v) in the complaint filed with the Seongnam District Office against the company for violation of Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act (advance notice of dismissal), the case was administratively closed on the ground that “it is not possible to objectively prove that a dismissal in fact occurred.”
Taking all of these circumstances together, apart from the employee’s assertion that Executive Director Kim ○○ and CEO Park Hyeong‑guk of the company dismissed him, there is no evidence to support that claim, and therefore no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (post‑interview text message), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Employees Aged 55 and Over)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (post‑interview text message) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Post‑Interview Text Message).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first-instance decision on the issue of “existence of dismissal (post‑interview text message).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae1723 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.24 · Result: First‑instance decision upheld
Key issue summary: The employee in 2025 …
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, alleging that the employer had unfairly dismissed him. However, the Central Labor Relations Commission found that no dismissal itself existed and ruled in favor of the employer. Based on the question of whether an unfair dismissal occurred, the decision structure of the Labor Relations Commission, and the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, we will整理 how to prevent and respond to similar disputes.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether unfair dismissal can be established “where, after an interview, the employee left the workplace, stopped reporting to work, and even sent a text message of thanks, but the employer did not separately give any notice of dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that, after an interview with Executive Director Kim ○○ on 12 May 2025, the employee left the workplace and did not return to work; that immediately after the interview he sent the employer a text message to the effect of “Thank you for everything so far, and I will somehow repay the help you have given me”; and that he continued to be absent without expressing any intention to resume work or return.
In light of these facts, the panel found that the employee appeared to have had an intention to resign or leave the company; that the company, also viewing the employee as having no intention of returning to work, processed the loss of his social insurance coverage only around 26 May, two weeks later; and that in the complaint filed with the Seongnam District Office alleging a violation of Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act (advance notice of dismissal), the matter was administratively closed on the ground that “it is not possible to objectively prove that a dismissal in fact occurred.”
Taking all of the above into account, the panel held that no dismissal existed in this case and that it was therefore appropriate to dismiss the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If, after an interview, an employee leaves the workplace in an emotional state and then is absent without leave for an extended period, the Labor Relations Commission may deny that any dismissal occurred if there is insufficient objective evidence, even if the employee later claims, “I was dismissed at that time.” To assert a dismissal, the employee must secure specific notice of dismissal (text message, email, personnel document, recording, etc.) or other materials supporting the employer’s unilateral intention to terminate the employment relationship.
In addition, even if the employee feels that remarks made during a meeting with a superior implied dismissal, it is crucial for subsequent unfair dismissal proceedings to immediately make a recording or memo, and to send a content-certified letter or other written inquiry requesting that the employer “clearly confirm whether I have been dismissed.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where an employee leaves the workplace of his own accord after an interview or fails to report to work for an extended period, it becomes easier to prove “non‑existence of dismissal” in an unfair dismissal dispute if the circumstances and content of the interview are clearly recorded in interview notes, text messages, emails, and the like. In particular, the timing and reason for processing the loss of social insurance coverage (voluntary resignation, unauthorized absence, etc.) should be objectively documented through the internal approval process.
Furthermore, during HR processes and interviews, expressions such as “you should quit” or “let’s let you go,” which may be misunderstood as dismissal, should be avoided as much as possible. Even when an employee chooses to resign voluntarily, it is essential to obtain clear documentation such as a written resignation letter or an email confirming the employee’s intention to resign, as this is key to preventing future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee, after an interview with Executive Director Kim ○○ on 12 May 2025, (i) left the workplace and thereafter did not report to the company; (ii) sent the employer a text message stating, “Thank you for everything so far, and I will somehow repay the help you have given me”; (iii) continued not to report to the company even after sending that text message; (iv) appears to have had his social insurance coverage terminated only on 26 May 2025, when the employer concluded that he had no intention of returning to work; and (v) in the complaint filed with the Seongnam District Office against the company for violation of Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act (advance notice of dismissal), the case was administratively closed on the ground that “it is not possible to objectively prove that a dismissal in fact occurred.”
Considering all of the above, apart from the employee’s assertion that Executive Director Kim ○○ and CEO Park Hyeong‑guk of the company dismissed him, there is no evidence to support that claim, and therefore no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
After an interview with Executive Director Kim ○○ on 12 May 2025, (i) the employee left the workplace and thereafter did not report to the company; (ii) he sent the employer a text message stating, “Thank you for everything so far, and I will somehow repay the help you have given me”; (iii) he continued not to report to the company even after sending that text message; (iv) it appears that the employer, having concluded that the employee had no intention of returning to work, processed the loss of his social insurance coverage only on 26 May 2025; and (v) in the complaint filed with the Seongnam District Office against the company for violation of Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act (advance notice of dismissal), the case was administratively closed on the ground that “it is not possible to objectively prove that a dismissal in fact occurred.”
Taking all of these circumstances together, apart from the employee’s assertion that Executive Director Kim ○○ and CEO Park Hyeong‑guk of the company dismissed him, there is no evidence to support that claim, and therefore no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (post‑interview text message), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Employees Aged 55 and Over)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (post‑interview text message) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Post‑Interview Text Message).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
