Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Withdrawal by Agreement Through Representative)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 158)
- Date2026/01/29 04:08
- Read 217
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the issue of “extinction of interest in relief (withdrawal by agreement through representative)” was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1357 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.22 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of interest in relief
The employee argued that the withdrawal form was not submitted in accordance with his own intent. However, it appeared that the employee’s representative, who had been granted authority over all matters in the case including settlement, reached an agreement with the employer and submitted the withdrawal form with the employee’s oral consent. The employer, pursuant to the agreement with the employee, deposited the settlement amount into the employee’s existing salary account, and the employee, despite having received the funds, neither returned them nor expressed any intention to return them...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a situation where, after the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee, through his representative, reached a settlement with the employer and a withdrawal of the re‑examination application was submitted. The Central Labor Relations Commission’s decision in this matter is introduced here.
As in similar cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Labor Relations Commission examined the effect of the withdrawal, the existence of any remaining interest in relief, and, in the alternative, whether the employer’s business fell under a “workplace with five or more regular employees,” which is a prerequisite for the collective dismissal/unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When a representative, duly authorized by the employee, reaches a settlement with the employer and submits a withdrawal of the re‑examination application for unfair dismissal, is such withdrawal valid as reflecting the employee’s intent, and, accordingly, does any interest in continuing the Labor Relations Commission remedy procedure remain?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee’s representative, who had been granted authority over all matters in the case including settlement, reached a settlement with the employer and submitted the withdrawal form based on the employee’s oral consent; that the employer, in accordance with the settlement, deposited the settlement amount into the employee’s existing salary account; and that the employee, despite having received the funds, neither returned them nor expressed any intention to return them.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found ample grounds to view that the re‑examination application was withdrawn in accordance with the employee’s intent, or at least that the employee subsequently ratified the act of withdrawal.
The panel held that, due to such valid withdrawal, there was no longer any practical benefit in seeking a remedy from the Labor Relations Commission in relation to the dismissal in this case, and therefore it was appropriate to dismiss the application on the ground that the interest in relief had been extinguished.
Furthermore, in the alternative, the panel held that even if there were some defect in the effectiveness of the withdrawal as claimed by the employee, the materials submitted and the parties’ assertions were insufficient to establish that the employer’s business was a workplace with five or more regular employees to which the dismissal restriction provisions of the Labor Standards Act apply. On this ground as well, the requirements for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal were deemed not to have been satisfied.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee, in the course of pursuing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, grants a representative (such as a labor attorney or attorney-at-law) comprehensive authority to settle and withdraw, and then receives and uses the funds paid under the settlement, it becomes very difficult thereafter to revive the remedy procedure merely by asserting, “I did not agree.”
In particular, if the employee does not return the settlement amount or raise an objection after receiving it, the Supreme Court’s precedents may recognize “consent to or approval of the dismissal” or subsequent ratification, leading to the extinction of interest in relief. Accordingly, employees should decide very carefully whether to settle and withdraw.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when an unfair dismissal dispute arises, even if proceedings are pending before the Labor Relations Commission, it is important, where a settlement is reached with the employee or a duly authorized representative leading to withdrawal, to clearly document the procedure and process of obtaining consent, as well as the payment and deposit details of the settlement amount.
In addition, even as an alternative argument, whether the business is a workplace with five or more regular employees—i.e., whether it falls within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act—can become a key issue. Employers should therefore maintain and preserve accurate records regarding the actual number of regular employees at all times.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Interest in Relief
The employee argued that the withdrawal form was not submitted in accordance with his own intent. However, it appeared that the employee’s representative, who had been granted authority over all matters in the case including settlement, reached a settlement with the employer and submitted the withdrawal form with the employee’s oral consent. The employer, pursuant to the agreement with the employee, deposited the settlement amount into the employee’s existing salary account, and the employee, despite having received the funds, neither returned them nor expressed any intention to return them. In light of these circumstances, there is ample room to view that the re‑examination application was withdrawn in accordance with the employee’s intent, or at least that there was subsequent ratification by the employee of the submission of the withdrawal form. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem the employee’s withdrawal of the re‑examination application valid, and, once this is so, to hold that there is no interest in the application for relief.
B. (Alternative Finding) Whether the Business Is a Workplace with Five or More Regular Employees
Even assuming, as the employee contends, that there is some defect in the effectiveness of the withdrawal, a comprehensive review of the materials submitted and the content of the parties’ assertions indicates that there is insufficient basis to find that the employer’s business is a workplace with five or more regular employees.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Interest in Relief
The employee argued that the withdrawal form was not submitted in accordance with his own intent. However, it appeared that the employee’s representative, who had been granted authority over all matters in the case including settlement, reached a settlement with the employer and submitted the withdrawal form with the employee’s oral consent. The employer, pursuant to the agreement with the employee, deposited the settlement amount into the employee’s existing salary account, and the employee, despite having received the funds, neither returned them nor expressed any intention to return them. In light of these circumstances, there is ample room to view that the re‑examination application was withdrawn in accordance with the employee’s intent, or at least that there was subsequent ratification by the employee of the submission of the withdrawal form. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem the employee’s withdrawal of the re‑examination application valid, and, once this is so, to hold that there is no interest in the application for relief.
B. (Alternative Finding) Whether the Business Is a Workplace with Five or More Regular Employees
Even assuming, as the employee contends, that there is some defect in the effectiveness of the withdrawal, a comprehensive review of the materials submitted and the content of the parties’ assertions indicates that there is insufficient basis to find that the employer’s business is a workplace with five or more regular employees. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Existence of Hiring Decision (Inquiry About Ability to Commence Work)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of interest in relief (withdrawal by agreement through representative), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Existence of Hiring Decision (Inquiry About Ability to Commence Work),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of interest in relief (withdrawal by agreement through representative) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Interest in Relief (Withdrawal by Agreement Through Representative).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the issue of “extinction of interest in relief (withdrawal by agreement through representative)” was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1357 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination for Remedy of Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.22 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of interest in relief
The employee argued that the withdrawal form was not submitted in accordance with his own intent. However, it appeared that the employee’s representative, who had been granted authority over all matters in the case including settlement, reached an agreement with the employer and submitted the withdrawal form with the employee’s oral consent. The employer, pursuant to the agreement with the employee, deposited the settlement amount into the employee’s existing salary account, and the employee, despite having received the funds, neither returned them nor expressed any intention to return them...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a situation where, after the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee, through his representative, reached a settlement with the employer and a withdrawal of the re‑examination application was submitted. The Central Labor Relations Commission’s decision in this matter is introduced here.
As in similar cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Labor Relations Commission examined the effect of the withdrawal, the existence of any remaining interest in relief, and, in the alternative, whether the employer’s business fell under a “workplace with five or more regular employees,” which is a prerequisite for the collective dismissal/unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When a representative, duly authorized by the employee, reaches a settlement with the employer and submits a withdrawal of the re‑examination application for unfair dismissal, is such withdrawal valid as reflecting the employee’s intent, and, accordingly, does any interest in continuing the Labor Relations Commission remedy procedure remain?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee’s representative, who had been granted authority over all matters in the case including settlement, reached a settlement with the employer and submitted the withdrawal form based on the employee’s oral consent; that the employer, in accordance with the settlement, deposited the settlement amount into the employee’s existing salary account; and that the employee, despite having received the funds, neither returned them nor expressed any intention to return them.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found ample grounds to view that the re‑examination application was withdrawn in accordance with the employee’s intent, or at least that the employee subsequently ratified the act of withdrawal.
The panel held that, due to such valid withdrawal, there was no longer any practical benefit in seeking a remedy from the Labor Relations Commission in relation to the dismissal in this case, and therefore it was appropriate to dismiss the application on the ground that the interest in relief had been extinguished.
Furthermore, in the alternative, the panel held that even if there were some defect in the effectiveness of the withdrawal as claimed by the employee, the materials submitted and the parties’ assertions were insufficient to establish that the employer’s business was a workplace with five or more regular employees to which the dismissal restriction provisions of the Labor Standards Act apply. On this ground as well, the requirements for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal were deemed not to have been satisfied.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee, in the course of pursuing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, grants a representative (such as a labor attorney or attorney-at-law) comprehensive authority to settle and withdraw, and then receives and uses the funds paid under the settlement, it becomes very difficult thereafter to revive the remedy procedure merely by asserting, “I did not agree.”
In particular, if the employee does not return the settlement amount or raise an objection after receiving it, the Supreme Court’s precedents may recognize “consent to or approval of the dismissal” or subsequent ratification, leading to the extinction of interest in relief. Accordingly, employees should decide very carefully whether to settle and withdraw.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when an unfair dismissal dispute arises, even if proceedings are pending before the Labor Relations Commission, it is important, where a settlement is reached with the employee or a duly authorized representative leading to withdrawal, to clearly document the procedure and process of obtaining consent, as well as the payment and deposit details of the settlement amount.
In addition, even as an alternative argument, whether the business is a workplace with five or more regular employees—i.e., whether it falls within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act—can become a key issue. Employers should therefore maintain and preserve accurate records regarding the actual number of regular employees at all times.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Interest in Relief
The employee argued that the withdrawal form was not submitted in accordance with his own intent. However, it appeared that the employee’s representative, who had been granted authority over all matters in the case including settlement, reached a settlement with the employer and submitted the withdrawal form with the employee’s oral consent. The employer, pursuant to the agreement with the employee, deposited the settlement amount into the employee’s existing salary account, and the employee, despite having received the funds, neither returned them nor expressed any intention to return them. In light of these circumstances, there is ample room to view that the re‑examination application was withdrawn in accordance with the employee’s intent, or at least that there was subsequent ratification by the employee of the submission of the withdrawal form. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem the employee’s withdrawal of the re‑examination application valid, and, once this is so, to hold that there is no interest in the application for relief.
B. (Alternative Finding) Whether the Business Is a Workplace with Five or More Regular Employees
Even assuming, as the employee contends, that there is some defect in the effectiveness of the withdrawal, a comprehensive review of the materials submitted and the content of the parties’ assertions indicates that there is insufficient basis to find that the employer’s business is a workplace with five or more regular employees.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of Interest in Relief
The employee argued that the withdrawal form was not submitted in accordance with his own intent. However, it appeared that the employee’s representative, who had been granted authority over all matters in the case including settlement, reached a settlement with the employer and submitted the withdrawal form with the employee’s oral consent. The employer, pursuant to the agreement with the employee, deposited the settlement amount into the employee’s existing salary account, and the employee, despite having received the funds, neither returned them nor expressed any intention to return them. In light of these circumstances, there is ample room to view that the re‑examination application was withdrawn in accordance with the employee’s intent, or at least that there was subsequent ratification by the employee of the submission of the withdrawal form. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem the employee’s withdrawal of the re‑examination application valid, and, once this is so, to hold that there is no interest in the application for relief.
B. (Alternative Finding) Whether the Business Is a Workplace with Five or More Regular Employees
Even assuming, as the employee contends, that there is some defect in the effectiveness of the withdrawal, a comprehensive review of the materials submitted and the content of the parties’ assertions indicates that there is insufficient basis to find that the employer’s business is a workplace with five or more regular employees. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Existence of Hiring Decision (Inquiry About Ability to Commence Work)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of interest in relief (withdrawal by agreement through representative), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Existence of Hiring Decision (Inquiry About Ability to Commence Work),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of interest in relief (withdrawal by agreement through representative) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Interest in Relief (Withdrawal by Agreement Through Representative).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
