Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk · Messages)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 205)
- Date2026/02/15 04:13
- Read 219
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk · messages).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal4123 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.12 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
(1) The message the employee left on 15 July 2025 is difficult to interpret as expressing an intention to terminate the employment relationship with the employer, and it is more reasonable to interpret it as meaning that the employee would “go to ○○ Global, where he had temporarily worked for the purpose of learning the job, to collect his belongings”;
(2) In light of the fact that on 17 July 2025, Head of Division Kang ○○ sent the employee a KakaoTalk message saying, “Shouldn’t you let us know what you plan to do going forward?”, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee stopped coming to work, KakaoTalk messages and the like were exchanged, and the company then notified the employee that “re-employment would be difficult,” leading the employee to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined not only whether the dismissal was unfair but also whether to issue an order for monetary compensation. The key point is how the Labor Relations Commission applied the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. This decision is highly instructive in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law& regarding the issues that frequently arise in unfair dismissal disputes: “resignation versus dismissal” and “whether dismissal was notified in writing.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether the employee’s KakaoTalk messages and temporary absence from work can be regarded as an intention to terminate the employment relationship (resignation), and whether the employer’s oral statement that “re-employment would be difficult,” without written notice, constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act and is therefore to be evaluated as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case held that:
(1) The message left by the employee is not reasonably interpreted as meaning “I will sever my employment relationship with the company,” but rather as meaning that the employee would “go to ○○ Global, where he had temporarily worked for the purpose of learning the job, to collect his belongings”;
(2) In light of the circumstances that the company’s head of division inquired by asking, “Shouldn’t you let us know what you plan to do going forward?”, it is difficult to regard the mere fact of the employee’s failure to report to work as termination of the employment relationship;
(3) After the employee expressed his intention to continue working, the employer informed him that “re-employment would be difficult.”
In view of these points, the panel found that a dismissal existed based on the employer’s unilateral intention.
The panel held that this dismissal was unfair because it suffered from a serious procedural defect: there had been no written notice whatsoever of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
The Labor Relations Commission reasoned that Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act is a mandatory provision that imposes a formal requirement on dismissals; that written notice is intended to clarify whether a dismissal has occurred, and its timing and reasons, thereby facilitating resolution of disputes and guaranteeing the employee’s right of defense; and that, in principle, text messages, KakaoTalk messages, or oral notifications alone cannot satisfy the written notice requirement. Reflecting the established position in prior case law and commentary that a dismissal is invalid solely by reason of violating the written notice obligation, even before examining whether there is a just cause for dismissal under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, the Commission found no need to further review the substantive justification for the dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if an employee is temporarily unable to report to work, the company cannot simply treat the situation as a resignation at its own discretion if the employee has not clearly expressed an intention to “resign.” If you hear statements from the company such as “re-employment would be difficult” or “do not come in anymore,” you should secure as much evidence as possible of the employer’s expression of intent to dismiss, such as text messages or recorded calls.
Furthermore, if you have been notified of dismissal but have not been given a written document (a dismissal notice) stating the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, you can actively challenge the employer’s conduct as a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. When filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to systematically organize and submit KakaoTalk messages, text messages, call logs, and other evidence supporting the contention that you did not resign but were unilaterally dismissed by the employer.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, you must keep in mind that you cannot immediately and unilaterally treat an employee’s failure to report to work or ambiguous messages as “voluntary resignation.” To terminate the employment relationship, you must first clearly confirm whether the employee’s true intention is to resign, and if you choose dismissal, you must provide a written document specifying the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal.
In addition, notifying an employee only by KakaoTalk, text message, or telephone that “re-employment would be difficult” or “do not come in anymore” is highly unlikely to satisfy the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. If dismissal is unavoidable, you should follow the procedures set out in your disciplinary rules and rules of employment, prepare and deliver a dismissal notice that sets out the specific facts, and systematically retain documents and records so that the timing and reasons can be proven in the event of a dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
(1) The message the employee left on 15 July 2025 is difficult to interpret as expressing an intention to terminate the employment relationship with the employer, and it appears more reasonable to interpret it as meaning that the employee would “go to ○○ Global, where he had temporarily worked for the purpose of learning the job, to collect his belongings”;
(2) In light of the fact that on 17 July 2025, Head of Division Kang ○○ sent the employee a KakaoTalk message saying, “Shouldn’t you let us know what you plan to do going forward?”, it is difficult to determine that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer had ended solely on the basis of the employee’s failure to report to work;
(3) The employee told the employer on 18 July 2025 that he wished to continue working, but on 20 July 2025 the employer appears to have called the employee and stated to the effect that “re-employment would be difficult.” In view of these points, the panel determined that a dismissal existed.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
It is clear that, in dismissing the employee, the employer did not provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, and thus the dismissal is unfair due to procedural defects. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, such as whether there was just cause for dismissal.
C. Acceptance of the application for an order of monetary compensation
The employee’s application for an order of monetary compensation is accepted, and the amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 12,791,750 (twelve million seven hundred ninety-one thousand seven hundred fifty won), equivalent to the wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether a dismissal exists
(1) The message the employee left on 15 July 2025 is difficult to interpret as expressing an intention to terminate the employment relationship with the employer, and it appears more reasonable to interpret it as meaning that the employee would “go to ○○ Global, where he had temporarily worked for the purpose of learning the job, to collect his belongings”;
(2) In light of the fact that on 17 July 2025, Head of Division Kang ○○ sent the employee a KakaoTalk message saying, “Shouldn’t you let us know what you plan to do going forward?”, it is difficult to determine that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer had ended solely on the basis of the employee’s failure to report to work;
(3) The employee told the employer on 18 July 2025 that he wished to continue working, but on 20 July 2025 the employer appears to have called the employee and stated to the effect that “re-employment would be difficult.” In view of these points, the panel determined that a dismissal existed.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
It is clear that, in dismissing the employee, the employer did not provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, and thus the dismissal is unfair due to procedural defects. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, such as whether there was just cause for dismissal.
C. Acceptance of the application for an order of monetary compensation
The employee’s application for an order of monetary compensation is accepted, and the amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 12,791,750 (twelve million seven hundred ninety-one thousand seven hundred fifty won), equivalent to the wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Justifiability of Transfer (Welfare Center New Jeju Center)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk · messages), 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, “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Welfare Center New Jeju Center)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk · messages) on the “Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk · Messages) Related Decisions List” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of the “existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk · messages).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal4123 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.12 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
(1) The message the employee left on 15 July 2025 is difficult to interpret as expressing an intention to terminate the employment relationship with the employer, and it is more reasonable to interpret it as meaning that the employee would “go to ○○ Global, where he had temporarily worked for the purpose of learning the job, to collect his belongings”;
(2) In light of the fact that on 17 July 2025, Head of Division Kang ○○ sent the employee a KakaoTalk message saying, “Shouldn’t you let us know what you plan to do going forward?”, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee stopped coming to work, KakaoTalk messages and the like were exchanged, and the company then notified the employee that “re-employment would be difficult,” leading the employee to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined not only whether the dismissal was unfair but also whether to issue an order for monetary compensation. The key point is how the Labor Relations Commission applied the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. This decision is highly instructive in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law& regarding the issues that frequently arise in unfair dismissal disputes: “resignation versus dismissal” and “whether dismissal was notified in writing.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether the employee’s KakaoTalk messages and temporary absence from work can be regarded as an intention to terminate the employment relationship (resignation), and whether the employer’s oral statement that “re-employment would be difficult,” without written notice, constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act and is therefore to be evaluated as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case held that:
(1) The message left by the employee is not reasonably interpreted as meaning “I will sever my employment relationship with the company,” but rather as meaning that the employee would “go to ○○ Global, where he had temporarily worked for the purpose of learning the job, to collect his belongings”;
(2) In light of the circumstances that the company’s head of division inquired by asking, “Shouldn’t you let us know what you plan to do going forward?”, it is difficult to regard the mere fact of the employee’s failure to report to work as termination of the employment relationship;
(3) After the employee expressed his intention to continue working, the employer informed him that “re-employment would be difficult.”
In view of these points, the panel found that a dismissal existed based on the employer’s unilateral intention.
The panel held that this dismissal was unfair because it suffered from a serious procedural defect: there had been no written notice whatsoever of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
The Labor Relations Commission reasoned that Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act is a mandatory provision that imposes a formal requirement on dismissals; that written notice is intended to clarify whether a dismissal has occurred, and its timing and reasons, thereby facilitating resolution of disputes and guaranteeing the employee’s right of defense; and that, in principle, text messages, KakaoTalk messages, or oral notifications alone cannot satisfy the written notice requirement. Reflecting the established position in prior case law and commentary that a dismissal is invalid solely by reason of violating the written notice obligation, even before examining whether there is a just cause for dismissal under Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, the Commission found no need to further review the substantive justification for the dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if an employee is temporarily unable to report to work, the company cannot simply treat the situation as a resignation at its own discretion if the employee has not clearly expressed an intention to “resign.” If you hear statements from the company such as “re-employment would be difficult” or “do not come in anymore,” you should secure as much evidence as possible of the employer’s expression of intent to dismiss, such as text messages or recorded calls.
Furthermore, if you have been notified of dismissal but have not been given a written document (a dismissal notice) stating the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, you can actively challenge the employer’s conduct as a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. When filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to systematically organize and submit KakaoTalk messages, text messages, call logs, and other evidence supporting the contention that you did not resign but were unilaterally dismissed by the employer.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, you must keep in mind that you cannot immediately and unilaterally treat an employee’s failure to report to work or ambiguous messages as “voluntary resignation.” To terminate the employment relationship, you must first clearly confirm whether the employee’s true intention is to resign, and if you choose dismissal, you must provide a written document specifying the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal.
In addition, notifying an employee only by KakaoTalk, text message, or telephone that “re-employment would be difficult” or “do not come in anymore” is highly unlikely to satisfy the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. If dismissal is unavoidable, you should follow the procedures set out in your disciplinary rules and rules of employment, prepare and deliver a dismissal notice that sets out the specific facts, and systematically retain documents and records so that the timing and reasons can be proven in the event of a dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
(1) The message the employee left on 15 July 2025 is difficult to interpret as expressing an intention to terminate the employment relationship with the employer, and it appears more reasonable to interpret it as meaning that the employee would “go to ○○ Global, where he had temporarily worked for the purpose of learning the job, to collect his belongings”;
(2) In light of the fact that on 17 July 2025, Head of Division Kang ○○ sent the employee a KakaoTalk message saying, “Shouldn’t you let us know what you plan to do going forward?”, it is difficult to determine that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer had ended solely on the basis of the employee’s failure to report to work;
(3) The employee told the employer on 18 July 2025 that he wished to continue working, but on 20 July 2025 the employer appears to have called the employee and stated to the effect that “re-employment would be difficult.” In view of these points, the panel determined that a dismissal existed.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
It is clear that, in dismissing the employee, the employer did not provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, and thus the dismissal is unfair due to procedural defects. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, such as whether there was just cause for dismissal.
C. Acceptance of the application for an order of monetary compensation
The employee’s application for an order of monetary compensation is accepted, and the amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 12,791,750 (twelve million seven hundred ninety-one thousand seven hundred fifty won), equivalent to the wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether a dismissal exists
(1) The message the employee left on 15 July 2025 is difficult to interpret as expressing an intention to terminate the employment relationship with the employer, and it appears more reasonable to interpret it as meaning that the employee would “go to ○○ Global, where he had temporarily worked for the purpose of learning the job, to collect his belongings”;
(2) In light of the fact that on 17 July 2025, Head of Division Kang ○○ sent the employee a KakaoTalk message saying, “Shouldn’t you let us know what you plan to do going forward?”, it is difficult to determine that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer had ended solely on the basis of the employee’s failure to report to work;
(3) The employee told the employer on 18 July 2025 that he wished to continue working, but on 20 July 2025 the employer appears to have called the employee and stated to the effect that “re-employment would be difficult.” In view of these points, the panel determined that a dismissal existed.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
It is clear that, in dismissing the employee, the employer did not provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, and thus the dismissal is unfair due to procedural defects. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, such as whether there was just cause for dismissal.
C. Acceptance of the application for an order of monetary compensation
The employee’s application for an order of monetary compensation is accepted, and the amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 12,791,750 (twelve million seven hundred ninety-one thousand seven hundred fifty won), equivalent to the wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Justifiability of Transfer (Welfare Center New Jeju Center)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk · messages), 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, “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Welfare Center New Jeju Center)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk · messages) on the “Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk · Messages) Related Decisions List” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
