Corporate trends / Performance record
Determination on Unfair Dismissal Concerning “Existence of Dismissal (Recorded Interview on Assault Incident)” (Unfair Dismissal 392)
- Date2026/04/22 04:04
- Read 157
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (recorded interview on assault incident).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9883 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
February 12, 2026 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) Although the employer appears to have persuaded the employee to continue working after an assault incident in the workplace, the employee refused and did not show an intention to continue working; (ii) 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, following an assault incident in the workplace, the employee claimed that he had been dismissed and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employee argued that certain statements made during an interview and the subsequent non‑payment of dismissal notice allowance constituted dismissal, while the employer argued that there had been no dismissal and that it had continuously requested the employee’s return to work. Through this case, we can see how the Labor Relations Commission determines whether unfair dismissal has occurred, in particular how it assesses the very “existence” of a dismissal, and we can also examine the evidentiary framework that Labor Law Firm Law& emphasizes in practice.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether “some statements exchanged during an interview following an assault incident in the workplace and subsequent surrounding circumstances alone are sufficient to recognize that the employer ‘dismissed’ the employee.” In other words, the core question is whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship was the employer’s unilateral dismissal, or whether the employee himself abandoned his intention to continue working.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, after the assault incident, the employer appears to have persuaded the employee to continue working, whereas the employee refused and did not show an intention to continue working; that, in response to the employee’s request on October 26, 2025 to “sign the consent form for business operator change” and his request on November 3, 2025 to “pay the October wages and dismissal notice allowance,” the employer responded that “there was no dismissal, so return to work”;
that it is difficult to regard the overall context as a notice of dismissal based solely on less than three minutes of partial recordings from a two‑hour interview submitted by the employee; that, in the employee’s complaint regarding non‑payment of dismissal notice allowance, the competent labor office closed the case with a “no suspicion” disposition on the ground that no dismissal existed; and that, although the employee claimed dismissal, he failed to submit evidentiary materials that could objectively support this claim.
On this basis, the panel held that the “dismissal” at issue in this case did not exist and that it was difficult to recognize that the employment relationship between the parties had been terminated by dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Under the Labor Standards Act, “dismissal” means any unilateral measure by which the employer terminates the employment relationship, regardless of its name or form. Therefore, to allege unfair dismissal, you must first prove the basic fact that “the employer dismissed the employee.” In particular, if you claim dismissal based only on oral interviews, emotionally charged reprimands, or isolated expressions, you should bear in mind that the overall context of the conversation and the company’s subsequent conduct (such as whether it requested your return to work) will be examined together. Accordingly, it is important to preserve and submit the entire recording of any interview to the extent possible, and to systematically secure text messages, messenger records, HR documents, and other materials from which the employer’s intention to dismiss can be inferred.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, following serious incidents such as an assault, it is advisable to refrain from emotional expressions to the effect of “just quit” during interviews, and to clearly record the company’s official position on whether the employee will continue working. If there is no intention to dismiss, written or electronic records of requests for return to work, messages encouraging attendance, and circumstances showing cooperation with business operator changes or administrative procedures will be very helpful in later proving the non‑existence of dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. In addition, when there are inquiries regarding dismissal notice allowance, the employer should clearly notify the employee that “since there was no dismissal, there is no entitlement to such allowance” in order to prevent disputes.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) Although the employer appears to have persuaded the employee to continue working after an assault incident in the workplace, the employee refused and did not show an intention to continue working; (ii) in response to the employee’s request on October 26, 2025 to “sign the consent form for business operator change,” the employer cooperated with the administrative procedures related to the business operator change, and in response to the employee’s request on November 3, 2025 to “pay the October wages and dismissal notice allowance,” the employer replied, “There was no dismissal, so return to work”; (iii) the employee submitted only part, and not the entirety, of the recording file of the conversation on October 17, 2025, and it appears unreasonable to interpret the situation as dismissal solely on the basis of a few sentences lasting less than three minutes out of an approximately two‑hour interview, without comprehensively considering the context before and after; (iv) in relation to the employee’s complaint regarding non‑payment of dismissal notice allowance, the competent labor office closed the case with a “no suspicion” disposition on the ground that no dismissal existed; and (v) although the employee alleged dismissal, he failed to submit evidentiary materials that could be objectively verified. Taking all of these into account, it is difficult to recognize that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(i) Although the employer appears to have persuaded the employee to continue working after an assault incident in the workplace, the employee refused and did not show an intention to continue working; (ii) in response to the employee’s request on October 26, 2025 to “sign the consent form for business operator change,” the employer cooperated with the administrative procedures related to the business operator change, and in response to the employee’s request on November 3, 2025 to “pay the October wages and dismissal notice allowance,” the employer replied, “There was no dismissal, so return to work”; (iii) the employee submitted only part, and not the entirety, of the recording file of the conversation on October 17, 2025, and it appears unreasonable to interpret the situation as dismissal solely on the basis of a few sentences lasting less than three minutes out of an approximately two‑hour interview, without comprehensively considering the context before and after; (iv) in relation to the employee’s complaint regarding non‑payment of dismissal notice allowance, the competent labor office closed the case with a “no suspicion” disposition on the ground that no dismissal existed; and (v) although the employee alleged dismissal, he failed to submit evidentiary materials that could be objectively verified. Taking all of these into account, it is difficult to recognize that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (recorded interview on assault incident), 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, “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Non‑Recognition of Disciplinary Grounds (Disclosure of Disciplinary Facts by Academy Instructor · Complaints from Parents)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (recorded interview on assault incident) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Recorded Interview on Assault Incident).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (recorded interview on assault incident).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9883 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
February 12, 2026 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) Although the employer appears to have persuaded the employee to continue working after an assault incident in the workplace, the employee refused and did not show an intention to continue working; (ii) 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, following an assault incident in the workplace, the employee claimed that he had been dismissed and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employee argued that certain statements made during an interview and the subsequent non‑payment of dismissal notice allowance constituted dismissal, while the employer argued that there had been no dismissal and that it had continuously requested the employee’s return to work. Through this case, we can see how the Labor Relations Commission determines whether unfair dismissal has occurred, in particular how it assesses the very “existence” of a dismissal, and we can also examine the evidentiary framework that Labor Law Firm Law& emphasizes in practice.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether “some statements exchanged during an interview following an assault incident in the workplace and subsequent surrounding circumstances alone are sufficient to recognize that the employer ‘dismissed’ the employee.” In other words, the core question is whether the cause of termination of the employment relationship was the employer’s unilateral dismissal, or whether the employee himself abandoned his intention to continue working.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, after the assault incident, the employer appears to have persuaded the employee to continue working, whereas the employee refused and did not show an intention to continue working; that, in response to the employee’s request on October 26, 2025 to “sign the consent form for business operator change” and his request on November 3, 2025 to “pay the October wages and dismissal notice allowance,” the employer responded that “there was no dismissal, so return to work”;
that it is difficult to regard the overall context as a notice of dismissal based solely on less than three minutes of partial recordings from a two‑hour interview submitted by the employee; that, in the employee’s complaint regarding non‑payment of dismissal notice allowance, the competent labor office closed the case with a “no suspicion” disposition on the ground that no dismissal existed; and that, although the employee claimed dismissal, he failed to submit evidentiary materials that could objectively support this claim.
On this basis, the panel held that the “dismissal” at issue in this case did not exist and that it was difficult to recognize that the employment relationship between the parties had been terminated by dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Under the Labor Standards Act, “dismissal” means any unilateral measure by which the employer terminates the employment relationship, regardless of its name or form. Therefore, to allege unfair dismissal, you must first prove the basic fact that “the employer dismissed the employee.” In particular, if you claim dismissal based only on oral interviews, emotionally charged reprimands, or isolated expressions, you should bear in mind that the overall context of the conversation and the company’s subsequent conduct (such as whether it requested your return to work) will be examined together. Accordingly, it is important to preserve and submit the entire recording of any interview to the extent possible, and to systematically secure text messages, messenger records, HR documents, and other materials from which the employer’s intention to dismiss can be inferred.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, following serious incidents such as an assault, it is advisable to refrain from emotional expressions to the effect of “just quit” during interviews, and to clearly record the company’s official position on whether the employee will continue working. If there is no intention to dismiss, written or electronic records of requests for return to work, messages encouraging attendance, and circumstances showing cooperation with business operator changes or administrative procedures will be very helpful in later proving the non‑existence of dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. In addition, when there are inquiries regarding dismissal notice allowance, the employer should clearly notify the employee that “since there was no dismissal, there is no entitlement to such allowance” in order to prevent disputes.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) Although the employer appears to have persuaded the employee to continue working after an assault incident in the workplace, the employee refused and did not show an intention to continue working; (ii) in response to the employee’s request on October 26, 2025 to “sign the consent form for business operator change,” the employer cooperated with the administrative procedures related to the business operator change, and in response to the employee’s request on November 3, 2025 to “pay the October wages and dismissal notice allowance,” the employer replied, “There was no dismissal, so return to work”; (iii) the employee submitted only part, and not the entirety, of the recording file of the conversation on October 17, 2025, and it appears unreasonable to interpret the situation as dismissal solely on the basis of a few sentences lasting less than three minutes out of an approximately two‑hour interview, without comprehensively considering the context before and after; (iv) in relation to the employee’s complaint regarding non‑payment of dismissal notice allowance, the competent labor office closed the case with a “no suspicion” disposition on the ground that no dismissal existed; and (v) although the employee alleged dismissal, he failed to submit evidentiary materials that could be objectively verified. Taking all of these into account, it is difficult to recognize that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(i) Although the employer appears to have persuaded the employee to continue working after an assault incident in the workplace, the employee refused and did not show an intention to continue working; (ii) in response to the employee’s request on October 26, 2025 to “sign the consent form for business operator change,” the employer cooperated with the administrative procedures related to the business operator change, and in response to the employee’s request on November 3, 2025 to “pay the October wages and dismissal notice allowance,” the employer replied, “There was no dismissal, so return to work”; (iii) the employee submitted only part, and not the entirety, of the recording file of the conversation on October 17, 2025, and it appears unreasonable to interpret the situation as dismissal solely on the basis of a few sentences lasting less than three minutes out of an approximately two‑hour interview, without comprehensively considering the context before and after; (iv) in relation to the employee’s complaint regarding non‑payment of dismissal notice allowance, the competent labor office closed the case with a “no suspicion” disposition on the ground that no dismissal existed; and (v) although the employee alleged dismissal, he failed to submit evidentiary materials that could be objectively verified. Taking all of these into account, it is difficult to recognize that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (recorded interview on assault incident), 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, “Determination on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Non‑Recognition of Disciplinary Grounds (Disclosure of Disciplinary Facts by Academy Instructor · Complaints from Parents)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (recorded interview on assault incident) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Recorded Interview on Assault Incident).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
