Corporate trends / Performance record
Extinction of Remedial Interest (Payment of Wages up to Voluntary Resignation Date) in Unfair Dismissal Cases (Unfair Dismissal 165)
- Date2026/01/31 04:14
- Read 247
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of remedial interest (payment of wages up to voluntary resignation date).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9222 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 18, 2025 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employer paid wages up to the employee’s self‑designated resignation date in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal by the employer. However, the application was filed only after the employment relationship had already been terminated as of the resignation date set by the employee, and all wages up to that date had been paid.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether “remedial interest,” which is a prerequisite for an application for remedy, still existed under these circumstances. On that basis, it ultimately found in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where the employment relationship has already ended as of the resignation date unilaterally set by the employee, and the employee has received full payment of all wages for that period, does any remedial interest remain so as to justify continuing the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial procedures in relation to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed thereafter?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer had paid the employee all wages due up to October 10, 2025, the resignation date set by the employee, so that there was no remaining amount of wages equivalent to back pay to be paid; that the employee filed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on October 21, 2025, after having already ceased to hold the status of employee; and that, under the Labor Standards Act, the unfair dismissal remedy system presupposes administrative relief in the form of “reinstatement to the original position or payment of wages equivalent thereto.”
In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to find that any rights or interests remained that the employee could restore through the procedures of the Labor Relations Commission, and that issues such as unpaid wages or retirement allowance could instead be resolved through separate civil litigation.
Accordingly, the panel determined that, regardless of whether the dismissal was substantively justified, there was no practical benefit in maintaining the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial procedures in relation to this dismissal, and therefore the application for remedy was unfounded.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, if you intend to challenge an unfair dismissal, it is important to file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission before you set a resignation date yourself and process your resignation, or otherwise finalize the termination of the employment relationship. Once the resignation has been fully processed and all wages have been settled, the Labor Relations Commission may find that no remedial interest exists and dismiss or reject the application. In that case, any remaining issues concerning wages, retirement allowance, or damages must be pursued separately through civil litigation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where the employee has clearly expressed an intention to resign and a resignation date has been set, it is very important for dispute prevention to accurately pay and settle all wages up to that date. Even where there is controversy over unfair dismissal, if the timing of the termination of the employment relationship and the details of wage settlement are clearly documented in writing and supported by evidence, these materials can later serve as grounds to argue the absence of remedial interest before the Labor Relations Commission. Employers are therefore advised to establish and maintain appropriate HR and labor‑management systems in advance.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Considering that the employer paid the employee all wages due up to October 10, 2025, the resignation date set by the employee, so that there was no remaining amount of wages equivalent to back pay to be paid to the employee, and that the employee filed the application for remedy on October 21, 2025, after having ceased to hold the status of employee, the Commission determined that there was no remedial interest in the application for remedy.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Considering that the employer paid the employee all wages due up to October 10, 2025, the resignation date set by the employee, so that there was no remaining amount of wages equivalent to back pay to be paid to the employee, and that the employee filed the application for remedy on October 21, 2025, after having ceased to hold the status of employee, the Commission determined that there was no remedial interest in the application for remedy. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expectation of Conversion to Regular Employment (National Theater Ability Verification Contract)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Extinction of Remedial Interest (Short-Term Fixed-Term Employment)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of remedial interest (payment of wages up to voluntary resignation date), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expectation of Conversion to Regular Employment (National Theater Ability Verification Contract),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to extinction of remedial interest (payment of wages up to voluntary resignation date) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Extinction of Remedial Interest (Payment of Wages up to Voluntary Resignation Date).”
※ 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 (payment of wages up to voluntary resignation date).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9222 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 18, 2025 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employer paid wages up to the employee’s self‑designated resignation date in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal by the employer. However, the application was filed only after the employment relationship had already been terminated as of the resignation date set by the employee, and all wages up to that date had been paid.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether “remedial interest,” which is a prerequisite for an application for remedy, still existed under these circumstances. On that basis, it ultimately found in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where the employment relationship has already ended as of the resignation date unilaterally set by the employee, and the employee has received full payment of all wages for that period, does any remedial interest remain so as to justify continuing the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial procedures in relation to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed thereafter?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer had paid the employee all wages due up to October 10, 2025, the resignation date set by the employee, so that there was no remaining amount of wages equivalent to back pay to be paid; that the employee filed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on October 21, 2025, after having already ceased to hold the status of employee; and that, under the Labor Standards Act, the unfair dismissal remedy system presupposes administrative relief in the form of “reinstatement to the original position or payment of wages equivalent thereto.”
In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to find that any rights or interests remained that the employee could restore through the procedures of the Labor Relations Commission, and that issues such as unpaid wages or retirement allowance could instead be resolved through separate civil litigation.
Accordingly, the panel determined that, regardless of whether the dismissal was substantively justified, there was no practical benefit in maintaining the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial procedures in relation to this dismissal, and therefore the application for remedy was unfounded.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, if you intend to challenge an unfair dismissal, it is important to file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission before you set a resignation date yourself and process your resignation, or otherwise finalize the termination of the employment relationship. Once the resignation has been fully processed and all wages have been settled, the Labor Relations Commission may find that no remedial interest exists and dismiss or reject the application. In that case, any remaining issues concerning wages, retirement allowance, or damages must be pursued separately through civil litigation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where the employee has clearly expressed an intention to resign and a resignation date has been set, it is very important for dispute prevention to accurately pay and settle all wages up to that date. Even where there is controversy over unfair dismissal, if the timing of the termination of the employment relationship and the details of wage settlement are clearly documented in writing and supported by evidence, these materials can later serve as grounds to argue the absence of remedial interest before the Labor Relations Commission. Employers are therefore advised to establish and maintain appropriate HR and labor‑management systems in advance.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Considering that the employer paid the employee all wages due up to October 10, 2025, the resignation date set by the employee, so that there was no remaining amount of wages equivalent to back pay to be paid to the employee, and that the employee filed the application for remedy on October 21, 2025, after having ceased to hold the status of employee, the Commission determined that there was no remedial interest in the application for remedy.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Considering that the employer paid the employee all wages due up to October 10, 2025, the resignation date set by the employee, so that there was no remaining amount of wages equivalent to back pay to be paid to the employee, and that the employee filed the application for remedy on October 21, 2025, after having ceased to hold the status of employee, the Commission determined that there was no remedial interest in the application for remedy. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expectation of Conversion to Regular Employment (National Theater Ability Verification Contract)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Extinction of Remedial Interest (Short-Term Fixed-Term Employment)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of remedial interest (payment of wages up to voluntary resignation date), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expectation of Conversion to Regular Employment (National Theater Ability Verification Contract),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to extinction of remedial interest (payment of wages up to voluntary resignation date) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Extinction of Remedial Interest (Payment of Wages up to Voluntary Resignation Date).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
