Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning “Proof of Existence of Dismissal (No Written Notice, Not a Redundancy Dismissal)” (Unfair Dismissal 431)
- Date2026/05/06 04:05
- Read 122
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “proof of existence of dismissal (no written notice, not a redundancy dismissal).”
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae45 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.31 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal actually exists must first be proven, and the burden of proof regarding the existence or non-existence of a dismissal lies with the employee. In this case, apart from the employee’s assertions, no specific material was submitted or confirmed that would allow the conclusion that the employer had dismissed the employee. Accordingly, it was determined that no dismissal existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed that the employment relationship had been terminated by a dismissal notice from the employer and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the facts, focusing on whether there existed any concrete, objective material evidencing dismissal by the employer, such as a specific dismissal notice or redundancy dismissal measures.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In order for the ‘unfair dismissal’ alleged by the employee to be established, who bears the burden of proving, and to what extent, that a dismissal by the employer actually exists in the first place?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that, before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, it must first be proven that a “dismissal disposition” actually took place, and that the burden of proof regarding the existence or non-existence of a dismissal lies with the employee seeking a remedy. In light of the fact that, apart from the employee’s unilateral statements, no specific material could be identified—such as written notice, personnel documents, or reports of loss of coverage under the four major social insurances—that would support the view that the employer had dismissed the employee,
the panel determined that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and therefore the application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that, in order to apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, they must first prove that “a dismissal occurred.” It is essential to secure as much material as possible that evidences the employer’s intention to dismiss, such as a dismissal notice, text messages or emails, loss of insured status under the four major social insurances, or changes to access control.
In particular, even in cases of individual dismissal that are not redundancy dismissals, it is important to organize and submit, in a systematic manner, whether there was written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and when and by what means such document was delivered.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even where no employee has actually been dismissed, it is necessary to prepare for situations in which an employee unilaterally alleges unfair dismissal by keeping clear records of the circumstances under which the employment relationship ended (resignation, expiry of a fixed-term contract, termination by mutual agreement, etc.). When effecting a dismissal, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act requires that the grounds and timing of the dismissal be notified in writing, and even for forms of dismissal other than redundancy dismissal, it is crucial for dispute prevention to document the existence and timing of the dismissal in a manner that is clearly ascertainable.
Conversely, where there is no intention to dismiss, it is advisable, when taking measures that could give rise to misunderstanding—such as filing a loss-of-coverage report for the four major social insurances, or changes in attendance or job assignment—to clearly explain and record the reasons and nature of such measures.
To prevail in this type of case, it is important to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing the existence of a dismissal and the burden of proof, and to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& so that the necessary materials are prepared in advance for the Labor Relations Commission proceedings.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal exists must first be proven, and although the burden of proof regarding the existence or non-existence of a dismissal lies with the employee, no specific material was submitted or confirmed—apart from the employee’s assertions—that would allow the conclusion that the employer had dismissed the employee. It was therefore determined that no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal exists must first be proven, and although the burden of proof regarding the existence or non-existence of a dismissal lies with the employee, no specific material was submitted or confirmed—apart from the employee’s assertions—that would allow the conclusion that the employer had dismissed the employee. It was therefore determined that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Case on Unfair Dismissal” – Decision date: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Phone Call)’ Case on Unfair Dismissal”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Case on Unfair Dismissal”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, proof of existence of dismissal (no written notice, not a redundancy dismissal), other, 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, “‘Continuous Service (Interruption During Agricultural Off-Season)’ Case on Unfair Dismissal,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to proof of existence of dismissal (no written notice, not a redundancy dismissal) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Proof of Existence of Dismissal (No Written Notice, Not a Redundancy Dismissal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “proof of existence of dismissal (no written notice, not a redundancy dismissal).”
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae45 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.31 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal actually exists must first be proven, and the burden of proof regarding the existence or non-existence of a dismissal lies with the employee. In this case, apart from the employee’s assertions, no specific material was submitted or confirmed that would allow the conclusion that the employer had dismissed the employee. Accordingly, it was determined that no dismissal existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed that the employment relationship had been terminated by a dismissal notice from the employer and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the facts, focusing on whether there existed any concrete, objective material evidencing dismissal by the employer, such as a specific dismissal notice or redundancy dismissal measures.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In order for the ‘unfair dismissal’ alleged by the employee to be established, who bears the burden of proving, and to what extent, that a dismissal by the employer actually exists in the first place?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held that, before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, it must first be proven that a “dismissal disposition” actually took place, and that the burden of proof regarding the existence or non-existence of a dismissal lies with the employee seeking a remedy. In light of the fact that, apart from the employee’s unilateral statements, no specific material could be identified—such as written notice, personnel documents, or reports of loss of coverage under the four major social insurances—that would support the view that the employer had dismissed the employee,
the panel determined that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and therefore the application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should bear in mind that, in order to apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, they must first prove that “a dismissal occurred.” It is essential to secure as much material as possible that evidences the employer’s intention to dismiss, such as a dismissal notice, text messages or emails, loss of insured status under the four major social insurances, or changes to access control.
In particular, even in cases of individual dismissal that are not redundancy dismissals, it is important to organize and submit, in a systematic manner, whether there was written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and when and by what means such document was delivered.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even where no employee has actually been dismissed, it is necessary to prepare for situations in which an employee unilaterally alleges unfair dismissal by keeping clear records of the circumstances under which the employment relationship ended (resignation, expiry of a fixed-term contract, termination by mutual agreement, etc.). When effecting a dismissal, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act requires that the grounds and timing of the dismissal be notified in writing, and even for forms of dismissal other than redundancy dismissal, it is crucial for dispute prevention to document the existence and timing of the dismissal in a manner that is clearly ascertainable.
Conversely, where there is no intention to dismiss, it is advisable, when taking measures that could give rise to misunderstanding—such as filing a loss-of-coverage report for the four major social insurances, or changes in attendance or job assignment—to clearly explain and record the reasons and nature of such measures.
To prevail in this type of case, it is important to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing the existence of a dismissal and the burden of proof, and to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& so that the necessary materials are prepared in advance for the Labor Relations Commission proceedings.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal exists must first be proven, and although the burden of proof regarding the existence or non-existence of a dismissal lies with the employee, no specific material was submitted or confirmed—apart from the employee’s assertions—that would allow the conclusion that the employer had dismissed the employee. It was therefore determined that no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal exists must first be proven, and although the burden of proof regarding the existence or non-existence of a dismissal lies with the employee, no specific material was submitted or confirmed—apart from the employee’s assertions—that would allow the conclusion that the employer had dismissed the employee. It was therefore determined that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Case on Unfair Dismissal” – Decision date: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Phone Call)’ Case on Unfair Dismissal”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Case on Unfair Dismissal”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, proof of existence of dismissal (no written notice, not a redundancy dismissal), other, 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, “‘Continuous Service (Interruption During Agricultural Off-Season)’ Case on Unfair Dismissal,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to proof of existence of dismissal (no written notice, not a redundancy dismissal) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Proof of Existence of Dismissal (No Written Notice, Not a Redundancy Dismissal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
