Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Extinction of Remedial Interest (De Facto Closure)” (Unfair Dismissal 386)
- Date2026/04/20 04:04
- Read 168
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of remedial interest (de facto closure).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9680 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (1) At the time the employee filed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the business establishment was already in a de facto state of closure, so it was reasonable to view that the interest in receiving a remedial order from the Labor Relations Commission had extinguished; (2) Even assuming remedial interest existed, when the employer, for managerial reasons, recommended that the employee resign, the employee appears to have raised no particular objection, stopped coming to work from the next day, and engaged in job‑seeking activities, and there was no other objective evidence to support that the employee had been dismissed …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed to have been dismissed by the employer and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission, however, examined both whether the business establishment had in fact been closed and whether a dismissal had occurred at all.
In the course of the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the business establishment was already in a de facto state of closure, and whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or the employee’s resignation.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were “whether, at the time of filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, any remedial interest existed before the Labor Relations Commission where the business establishment was in a de facto state of closure, and whether, in light of the employer’s recommendation to resign for managerial reasons, the employee’s subsequent cessation of attendance at work, and the employee’s job‑seeking activities, the termination of the employment relationship constituted an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer had in effect closed the business, so there was no workplace to which the employee could be reinstated; that under Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7988 and similar precedents, where an entire business or an independent business unit is fully closed, the realization of a remedial order for unfair dismissal is objectively impossible and remedial interest is deemed to have extinguished; and that the employee’s claimed interests relating to wages and retirement benefits were interests that could be remedied through civil litigation.
Accordingly, the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal had to be regarded as having been filed at a time when no substantive restoration could be achieved through a remedial order of the Labor Relations Commission, and the Commission held that there was no remedial interest to order reinstatement to the original position and payment of wages for the corresponding period.
Furthermore, even assuming that some remedial interest remained, the Commission noted that after the employer recommended resignation for managerial reasons, the employee, without raising any particular objection, stopped coming to work from the next day and immediately began job‑seeking activities; that there was no objective evidence such as a written notice of dismissal or explicit statements of dismissal to support the employee’s claim of having been dismissed; and that Supreme Court precedents determine whether there has been a resignation or termination by mutual agreement by comprehensively considering the employee’s conduct and surrounding circumstances. In light of all these factors, the Commission found it difficult to regard the termination of the employment relationship in this case as an unfair dismissal unilaterally imposed by the employer against the employee’s will.
Ultimately, because the “dismissal disposition” in this case had to be regarded as non‑existent, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, it is crucial that, at the time of dismissal or at the time of the hearing, there actually exists a business establishment to which reinstatement is possible. Where the company has effectively ceased operations, it should be noted that it is difficult to obtain the desired remedy solely through the Commission procedure.
In addition, if, after the employer recommends resignation, the employee stops coming to work without raising any objection and immediately starts looking for another job, there is a high risk that the situation will be evaluated as a resignation or termination by mutual agreement. If the employee perceives the situation as a dismissal, it is necessary to object immediately and preserve objective evidence such as text messages, recordings, or a written notice of dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when considering workforce adjustments for managerial reasons or measures equivalent to collective redundancies, if the situation is in substance close to a dismissal but only the form of a “recommendation to resign” is used and no written record is kept, this may work to the employer’s disadvantage in subsequent disputes. It is therefore advisable to prepare clear documentation and procedures specifying whether the termination is a resignation or a dismissal, and what the terms of any mutual termination are.
Furthermore, when closing a business establishment or completely abolishing an independent business unit, whether remedial interest has extinguished will become a key issue in unfair dismissal disputes. It is helpful for dispute prevention to systematically organize materials concerning the scope and timing of the closure and the existence of any remaining assets.
In this type of case, it is important to understand accurately the legal doctrine of “remedial interest” as applied by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, and to organize the facts in detail from the early stages. If a similar dispute is anticipated, it is advisable to establish a strategy in advance through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) At the time the employee filed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the business establishment was already in a de facto state of closure, so it was reasonable to view that the interest in receiving a remedial order from the Labor Relations Commission had extinguished; (2) Even assuming remedial interest existed, when the employer, for managerial reasons, recommended that the employee resign, the employee appears to have raised no particular objection, stopped coming to work from the next day, and engaged in job‑seeking activities, and there was no other objective evidence to support that the employee had been dismissed. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been terminated unilaterally by the employer’s will against the employee’s intention, and thus no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) At the time the employee filed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the business establishment was already in a de facto state of closure, so it was reasonable to view that the interest in receiving a remedial order from the Labor Relations Commission had extinguished; (2) Even assuming remedial interest existed, when the employer, for managerial reasons, recommended that the employee resign, the employee appears to have raised no particular objection, stopped coming to work from the next day, and engaged in job‑seeking activities, and there was no other objective evidence to support that the employee had been dismissed. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been terminated unilaterally by the employer’s will against the employee’s intention, and thus no dismissal existed. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of remedial interest (de facto closure), restructuring, 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.
※ The previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Workplace Bullying (Remarks on Colleague’s Appearance)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to extinction of remedial interest (de facto closure) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Relating to Extinction of Remedial Interest (De Facto Closure).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of remedial interest (de facto closure).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9680 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (1) At the time the employee filed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the business establishment was already in a de facto state of closure, so it was reasonable to view that the interest in receiving a remedial order from the Labor Relations Commission had extinguished; (2) Even assuming remedial interest existed, when the employer, for managerial reasons, recommended that the employee resign, the employee appears to have raised no particular objection, stopped coming to work from the next day, and engaged in job‑seeking activities, and there was no other objective evidence to support that the employee had been dismissed …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed to have been dismissed by the employer and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission, however, examined both whether the business establishment had in fact been closed and whether a dismissal had occurred at all.
In the course of the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the business establishment was already in a de facto state of closure, and whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or the employee’s resignation.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were “whether, at the time of filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, any remedial interest existed before the Labor Relations Commission where the business establishment was in a de facto state of closure, and whether, in light of the employer’s recommendation to resign for managerial reasons, the employee’s subsequent cessation of attendance at work, and the employee’s job‑seeking activities, the termination of the employment relationship constituted an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer had in effect closed the business, so there was no workplace to which the employee could be reinstated; that under Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7988 and similar precedents, where an entire business or an independent business unit is fully closed, the realization of a remedial order for unfair dismissal is objectively impossible and remedial interest is deemed to have extinguished; and that the employee’s claimed interests relating to wages and retirement benefits were interests that could be remedied through civil litigation.
Accordingly, the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal had to be regarded as having been filed at a time when no substantive restoration could be achieved through a remedial order of the Labor Relations Commission, and the Commission held that there was no remedial interest to order reinstatement to the original position and payment of wages for the corresponding period.
Furthermore, even assuming that some remedial interest remained, the Commission noted that after the employer recommended resignation for managerial reasons, the employee, without raising any particular objection, stopped coming to work from the next day and immediately began job‑seeking activities; that there was no objective evidence such as a written notice of dismissal or explicit statements of dismissal to support the employee’s claim of having been dismissed; and that Supreme Court precedents determine whether there has been a resignation or termination by mutual agreement by comprehensively considering the employee’s conduct and surrounding circumstances. In light of all these factors, the Commission found it difficult to regard the termination of the employment relationship in this case as an unfair dismissal unilaterally imposed by the employer against the employee’s will.
Ultimately, because the “dismissal disposition” in this case had to be regarded as non‑existent, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, it is crucial that, at the time of dismissal or at the time of the hearing, there actually exists a business establishment to which reinstatement is possible. Where the company has effectively ceased operations, it should be noted that it is difficult to obtain the desired remedy solely through the Commission procedure.
In addition, if, after the employer recommends resignation, the employee stops coming to work without raising any objection and immediately starts looking for another job, there is a high risk that the situation will be evaluated as a resignation or termination by mutual agreement. If the employee perceives the situation as a dismissal, it is necessary to object immediately and preserve objective evidence such as text messages, recordings, or a written notice of dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when considering workforce adjustments for managerial reasons or measures equivalent to collective redundancies, if the situation is in substance close to a dismissal but only the form of a “recommendation to resign” is used and no written record is kept, this may work to the employer’s disadvantage in subsequent disputes. It is therefore advisable to prepare clear documentation and procedures specifying whether the termination is a resignation or a dismissal, and what the terms of any mutual termination are.
Furthermore, when closing a business establishment or completely abolishing an independent business unit, whether remedial interest has extinguished will become a key issue in unfair dismissal disputes. It is helpful for dispute prevention to systematically organize materials concerning the scope and timing of the closure and the existence of any remaining assets.
In this type of case, it is important to understand accurately the legal doctrine of “remedial interest” as applied by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, and to organize the facts in detail from the early stages. If a similar dispute is anticipated, it is advisable to establish a strategy in advance through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) At the time the employee filed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the business establishment was already in a de facto state of closure, so it was reasonable to view that the interest in receiving a remedial order from the Labor Relations Commission had extinguished; (2) Even assuming remedial interest existed, when the employer, for managerial reasons, recommended that the employee resign, the employee appears to have raised no particular objection, stopped coming to work from the next day, and engaged in job‑seeking activities, and there was no other objective evidence to support that the employee had been dismissed. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been terminated unilaterally by the employer’s will against the employee’s intention, and thus no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) At the time the employee filed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the business establishment was already in a de facto state of closure, so it was reasonable to view that the interest in receiving a remedial order from the Labor Relations Commission had extinguished; (2) Even assuming remedial interest existed, when the employer, for managerial reasons, recommended that the employee resign, the employee appears to have raised no particular objection, stopped coming to work from the next day, and engaged in job‑seeking activities, and there was no other objective evidence to support that the employee had been dismissed. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the employment relationship as having been terminated unilaterally by the employer’s will against the employee’s intention, and thus no dismissal existed. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of remedial interest (de facto closure), restructuring, 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.
※ The previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Workplace Bullying (Remarks on Colleague’s Appearance)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to extinction of remedial interest (de facto closure) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Relating to Extinction of Remedial Interest (De Facto Closure).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
