Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Exclusion Period (Complaint Filed via Government24) in Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 402)
- Date2026/04/25 04:10
- Read 154
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of the “exclusion period (complaint filed via Government24).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9226 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case type: Dismissal (procedural)
Summary of key issue: It is confirmed that there is no dispute between the parties that the date on which the grounds for filing the application for remedy arose is 11 September 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission after being dismissed, but the case was dismissed by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the application period (exclusion period) had lapsed. After the dismissal, the employee first filed a complaint with the Ministry of Employment and Labor via Government24, and, following guidance from the local labor office, subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Commission, however, determined whether the three‑month exclusion period had elapsed based on the actual date on which the application for remedy was received.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee, after dismissal, first files a complaint via Government24/the Ministry of Employment and Labor website, can this be regarded as an application for remedy for unfair dismissal to the Labor Relations Commission such that compliance with the three‑month exclusion period is recognized?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was no dispute between the parties that the employee’s date of dismissal was 11 September 2025; that although the employee filed an online complaint via the Ministry of Employment and Labor website through Government24 on 9 December 2025, it was difficult to find, in the content of that complaint alone, any explicit indication of an intention to file an application for remedy with the competent Regional Labor Relations Commission; and that the employee, immediately after being informed by the Jungbu Regional Employment and Labor Office on 15 December 2025 that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Commission, visited the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission and only then submitted the application for remedy.
In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that the actual date of receipt of the application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be deemed to be 15 December 2025. Furthermore, taking into account that the three‑month period for filing an application for remedy prescribed under the Labor Standards Act and the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act constitutes an exclusion period that must be interpreted and applied strictly, and that, according to the purport of Supreme Court precedents, such period cannot be extended or relaxed even where there are reasons not attributable to the applicant, the panel concluded that the application for remedy in this case, filed on 15 December 2025, more than three months after the date of dismissal, must be regarded as having been filed after the exclusion period had lapsed.
Without determining whether the dismissal in this case was unfair, the panel held that the employee’s right to apply for remedy had been extinguished because the application was filed after the exclusion period had expired.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees who wish to contest an unfair dismissal must bear in mind that they must file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the “competent Regional Labor Relations Commission” within three months from the day following the date of dismissal. Other procedures—such as complaints or petitions filed via Government24, the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s complaint/petition system, or the People’s Sinmungo (national petition system)—are separate from the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy procedure. Particular caution is required, as initiating those other procedures first does not automatically suspend or extend the exclusion period.
Employees should also accurately calculate for themselves the date of dismissal and the last day of the exclusion period, and, if possible, prepare the application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission as promptly as possible after dismissal. If there is difficulty in drafting the application or confirming jurisdiction, it is advisable at an early stage to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review the procedure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, regardless of whether the dismissal is substantively unfair, it is necessary to understand that the Labor Relations Commission takes a strict view of the exclusion period and, in the event of a dispute, to clearly distinguish and manage the dates on which various complaints or petitions are filed from the actual date on which an application for remedy is received by the Labor Relations Commission. However, rather than relying on the mere lapse of the exclusion period for comfort, it is safest in the long term to ensure, from the outset, that any personnel measures such as dismissal or redundancy are taken with sufficient just cause and due process, thereby creating a defensible structure before both the Labor Relations Commission and the courts.
In addition, where an employee has filed a complaint via Government24 or with a local labor office, the employer should closely review its content and, on the assumption that it may lead to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission, organize the facts and evidence in advance. From the perspective of managing HR and labor‑relations risk, it is prudent to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& on response strategies, including procedural issues such as the exclusion period and the existence of a benefit in seeking remedy.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
It is confirmed that there is no dispute between the parties that the date on which the grounds for filing the application for remedy arose is 11 September 2025. The employee argues that, because he/she filed a complaint via the Ministry of Employment and Labor website on Government24 on 9 December 2025 alleging that the dismissal was unfair, it should be deemed that the application was filed within three months and that the exclusion period has therefore not lapsed. However, it is difficult to find, in the content of the complaint that the employee filed online via the Ministry of Employment and Labor website, any circumstances that would allow it to be regarded as an explicit application for remedy to the competent Regional Labor Relations Commission; the employee, immediately after being informed by the Jungbu Regional Employment and Labor Office on 15 December 2025 that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Commission, visited our Commission and submitted an application for remedy; and, considering the provisions on exclusion periods in the Labor Standards Act and other relevant statutes and the purport of Supreme Court precedents concerning applications for remedy, it is inferred that the three‑month exclusion period must be interpreted and applied strictly. In light of all these circumstances, it is determined that the employee filed an application for remedy with our Commission on 15 December 2025, alleging that the dismissal was unfair. Accordingly, since the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 December 2025, more than three months after the asserted date of dismissal (11 September 2025), it is reasonable to view that the right to apply for remedy has been extinguished.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
It is confirmed that there is no dispute between the parties that the date on which the grounds for filing the application for remedy arose is 11 September 2025. The employee argues that, because he/she filed a complaint via the Ministry of Employment and Labor website on Government24 on 9 December 2025 alleging that the dismissal was unfair, it should be deemed that the application was filed within three months and that the exclusion period has therefore not lapsed. However, it is difficult to find, in the content of the complaint that the employee filed online via the Ministry of Employment and Labor website, any circumstances that would allow it to be regarded as an explicit application for remedy to the competent Regional Labor Relations Commission; the employee, immediately after being informed by the Jungbu Regional Employment and Labor Office on 15 December 2025 that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Commission, visited our Commission and submitted an application for remedy; and, considering the provisions on exclusion periods in the Labor Standards Act and other relevant statutes and the purport of Supreme Court precedents concerning applications for remedy, it is inferred that the three‑month exclusion period must be interpreted and applied strictly. In light of all these circumstances, it is determined that the employee filed an application for remedy with our Commission on 15 December 2025, alleging that the dismissal was unfair. Accordingly, since the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 December 2025, more than three months after the asserted date of dismissal (11 September 2025), it is reasonable to view that the right to apply for remedy has been extinguished. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case type: Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, exclusion period (complaint filed via Government24), 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 one of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series.
※ The previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Existence of Dismissal (Meeting for Recommended Resignation)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to the exclusion period (complaint filed via Government24) can be viewed together in “List of Decisions Relating to Exclusion Period (Complaint Filed via Government24).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of the “exclusion period (complaint filed via Government24).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9226 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case type: Dismissal (procedural)
Summary of key issue: It is confirmed that there is no dispute between the parties that the date on which the grounds for filing the application for remedy arose is 11 September 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission after being dismissed, but the case was dismissed by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the application period (exclusion period) had lapsed. After the dismissal, the employee first filed a complaint with the Ministry of Employment and Labor via Government24, and, following guidance from the local labor office, subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Commission, however, determined whether the three‑month exclusion period had elapsed based on the actual date on which the application for remedy was received.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee, after dismissal, first files a complaint via Government24/the Ministry of Employment and Labor website, can this be regarded as an application for remedy for unfair dismissal to the Labor Relations Commission such that compliance with the three‑month exclusion period is recognized?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was no dispute between the parties that the employee’s date of dismissal was 11 September 2025; that although the employee filed an online complaint via the Ministry of Employment and Labor website through Government24 on 9 December 2025, it was difficult to find, in the content of that complaint alone, any explicit indication of an intention to file an application for remedy with the competent Regional Labor Relations Commission; and that the employee, immediately after being informed by the Jungbu Regional Employment and Labor Office on 15 December 2025 that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Commission, visited the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission and only then submitted the application for remedy.
In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that the actual date of receipt of the application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be deemed to be 15 December 2025. Furthermore, taking into account that the three‑month period for filing an application for remedy prescribed under the Labor Standards Act and the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act constitutes an exclusion period that must be interpreted and applied strictly, and that, according to the purport of Supreme Court precedents, such period cannot be extended or relaxed even where there are reasons not attributable to the applicant, the panel concluded that the application for remedy in this case, filed on 15 December 2025, more than three months after the date of dismissal, must be regarded as having been filed after the exclusion period had lapsed.
Without determining whether the dismissal in this case was unfair, the panel held that the employee’s right to apply for remedy had been extinguished because the application was filed after the exclusion period had expired.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees who wish to contest an unfair dismissal must bear in mind that they must file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the “competent Regional Labor Relations Commission” within three months from the day following the date of dismissal. Other procedures—such as complaints or petitions filed via Government24, the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s complaint/petition system, or the People’s Sinmungo (national petition system)—are separate from the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy procedure. Particular caution is required, as initiating those other procedures first does not automatically suspend or extend the exclusion period.
Employees should also accurately calculate for themselves the date of dismissal and the last day of the exclusion period, and, if possible, prepare the application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission as promptly as possible after dismissal. If there is difficulty in drafting the application or confirming jurisdiction, it is advisable at an early stage to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review the procedure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, regardless of whether the dismissal is substantively unfair, it is necessary to understand that the Labor Relations Commission takes a strict view of the exclusion period and, in the event of a dispute, to clearly distinguish and manage the dates on which various complaints or petitions are filed from the actual date on which an application for remedy is received by the Labor Relations Commission. However, rather than relying on the mere lapse of the exclusion period for comfort, it is safest in the long term to ensure, from the outset, that any personnel measures such as dismissal or redundancy are taken with sufficient just cause and due process, thereby creating a defensible structure before both the Labor Relations Commission and the courts.
In addition, where an employee has filed a complaint via Government24 or with a local labor office, the employer should closely review its content and, on the assumption that it may lead to an application for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission, organize the facts and evidence in advance. From the perspective of managing HR and labor‑relations risk, it is prudent to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& on response strategies, including procedural issues such as the exclusion period and the existence of a benefit in seeking remedy.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
It is confirmed that there is no dispute between the parties that the date on which the grounds for filing the application for remedy arose is 11 September 2025. The employee argues that, because he/she filed a complaint via the Ministry of Employment and Labor website on Government24 on 9 December 2025 alleging that the dismissal was unfair, it should be deemed that the application was filed within three months and that the exclusion period has therefore not lapsed. However, it is difficult to find, in the content of the complaint that the employee filed online via the Ministry of Employment and Labor website, any circumstances that would allow it to be regarded as an explicit application for remedy to the competent Regional Labor Relations Commission; the employee, immediately after being informed by the Jungbu Regional Employment and Labor Office on 15 December 2025 that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Commission, visited our Commission and submitted an application for remedy; and, considering the provisions on exclusion periods in the Labor Standards Act and other relevant statutes and the purport of Supreme Court precedents concerning applications for remedy, it is inferred that the three‑month exclusion period must be interpreted and applied strictly. In light of all these circumstances, it is determined that the employee filed an application for remedy with our Commission on 15 December 2025, alleging that the dismissal was unfair. Accordingly, since the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 December 2025, more than three months after the asserted date of dismissal (11 September 2025), it is reasonable to view that the right to apply for remedy has been extinguished.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
It is confirmed that there is no dispute between the parties that the date on which the grounds for filing the application for remedy arose is 11 September 2025. The employee argues that, because he/she filed a complaint via the Ministry of Employment and Labor website on Government24 on 9 December 2025 alleging that the dismissal was unfair, it should be deemed that the application was filed within three months and that the exclusion period has therefore not lapsed. However, it is difficult to find, in the content of the complaint that the employee filed online via the Ministry of Employment and Labor website, any circumstances that would allow it to be regarded as an explicit application for remedy to the competent Regional Labor Relations Commission; the employee, immediately after being informed by the Jungbu Regional Employment and Labor Office on 15 December 2025 that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Commission, visited our Commission and submitted an application for remedy; and, considering the provisions on exclusion periods in the Labor Standards Act and other relevant statutes and the purport of Supreme Court precedents concerning applications for remedy, it is inferred that the three‑month exclusion period must be interpreted and applied strictly. In light of all these circumstances, it is determined that the employee filed an application for remedy with our Commission on 15 December 2025, alleging that the dismissal was unfair. Accordingly, since the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 December 2025, more than three months after the asserted date of dismissal (11 September 2025), it is reasonable to view that the right to apply for remedy has been extinguished. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case type: Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, exclusion period (complaint filed via Government24), 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 one of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series.
※ The previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Existence of Dismissal (Meeting for Recommended Resignation)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to the exclusion period (complaint filed via Government24) can be viewed together in “List of Decisions Relating to Exclusion Period (Complaint Filed via Government24).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
