Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Grounds and Written Notice Defect (Sales Position with Poor Performance)” (Unfair Dismissal 214)
- Date2026/02/18 04:13
- Read 222
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “grounds and written notice defect (sales position with poor performance).”
Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9111 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 10, 2025 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a sales employee, having been unilaterally notified by the employer that there were no sales results and being asked to resign, filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether a dismissal existed in relation to the initial notice on September 25, 2025, the text message on September 30, and the final dismissal date, and at the same time assessed the legitimacy of the grounds and procedure for the dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a dismissal based on the absence of sales, the employer can treat this as a cause attributable to the employee, and whether the dismissal can be considered effective where the grounds and timing of the dismissal were not notified in writing.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that, after the employer notified the employee of dismissal orally or in a similar manner on September 25, 2025, the employer sent a text message on September 30, 2025 stating that it was “giving notice of dismissal” and instructing the employee to work until October 30, 2025. In light of this, the panel held that the expression of intent to dismiss on September 25 was withdrawn, and that the final dismissal existed as of October 30.
The employer’s asserted grounds of “lack of work ability, no sales” could not readily be regarded as attributable to the employee. No objective evidence was submitted sufficient to determine whether the poor sales figures and performance were due to reasons for which the employee was responsible. In addition, no written notice specifying the grounds and timing of the dismissal, as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, was provided at all.
On these grounds, the panel held that this dismissal was unfair, not only because socially acceptable just cause for dismissal was lacking, but also because there was a serious procedural defect arising from the violation of the obligation to give written notice.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee is notified of dismissal on the grounds of poor sales or declining performance, the employee should first accurately confirm the dismissal date and by what written document and for what reasons the dismissal has been communicated. Where the grounds for dismissal are vague, where the company attributes full responsibility to the employee despite significant external factors such as the company’s business structure, products, pricing policy, or market conditions, or where there is no written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal, the employee should actively consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when considering personnel measures on the grounds of poor sales performance by a sales employee, it must be borne in mind that the mere abstract statement “there are no sales” will rarely suffice to establish the legitimacy of a dismissal. The appropriateness of the sales targets, the level of support provided by the company, comparison with the performance of employees in the same or similar positions, and market conditions should be comprehensively reviewed, and the results should be organized in a way that can be substantiated with figures and documentation.
Furthermore, under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, in order to carry out a dismissal, the employer must deliver to the employee, prior to the dismissal taking effect, a written document clearly specifying the grounds and timing of the dismissal in sufficient detail for the employee to understand. The procedure cannot be replaced merely by a text message or oral notice.
Finally, even where the dismissal is not for managerial reasons such as a redundancy dismissal, every dismissal requires both “just cause” and “lawful procedure” as two concurrent pillars. On the basis of this fundamental legal principle, employers should consult in advance with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to minimize HR and labor-management risks.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether a dismissal existed
Since, after the dismissal notice dated September 25, 2025, the employer sent the employee a text message on September 30, 2025 stating that it was giving notice of dismissal and instructing the employee to work until October 30, 2025, the dismissal as of September 25, 2025 was withdrawn, and a dismissal as of October 30, 2025 existed.
(b) Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
The dismissal grounds asserted by the employer—lack of work ability (no sales)—cannot be regarded as attributable to the employee, and no evidence regarding sales figures, etc. was submitted, so the legitimacy of the dismissal cannot be recognized. In addition, the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the grounds and timing of the dismissal when dismissing the employee, and thus the procedure was unlawful.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(a) Whether a dismissal existed
Since, after the dismissal notice dated September 25, 2025, the employer sent the employee a text message on September 30, 2025 stating that it was giving notice of dismissal and instructing the employee to work until October 30, 2025, the dismissal as of September 25, 2025 was withdrawn, and a dismissal as of October 30, 2025 existed.
(b) Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
The dismissal grounds asserted by the employer—lack of work ability (no sales)—cannot be regarded as attributable to the employee, and no evidence regarding sales figures, etc. was submitted, so the legitimacy of the dismissal cannot be recognized. In addition, the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the grounds and timing of the dismissal when dismissing the employee, and thus the procedure was unlawful.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, grounds and written notice defect (sales position with poor performance), performance evaluation and poor performance, 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, “‘Denial of Employee Status (Spouse Registered as Director)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to grounds and written notice defect (sales position with poor performance) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Grounds and Written Notice Defect (Sales Position with Poor Performance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “grounds and written notice defect (sales position with poor performance).”
Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9111 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 10, 2025 · Case outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a sales employee, having been unilaterally notified by the employer that there were no sales results and being asked to resign, filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether a dismissal existed in relation to the initial notice on September 25, 2025, the text message on September 30, and the final dismissal date, and at the same time assessed the legitimacy of the grounds and procedure for the dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a dismissal based on the absence of sales, the employer can treat this as a cause attributable to the employee, and whether the dismissal can be considered effective where the grounds and timing of the dismissal were not notified in writing.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that, after the employer notified the employee of dismissal orally or in a similar manner on September 25, 2025, the employer sent a text message on September 30, 2025 stating that it was “giving notice of dismissal” and instructing the employee to work until October 30, 2025. In light of this, the panel held that the expression of intent to dismiss on September 25 was withdrawn, and that the final dismissal existed as of October 30.
The employer’s asserted grounds of “lack of work ability, no sales” could not readily be regarded as attributable to the employee. No objective evidence was submitted sufficient to determine whether the poor sales figures and performance were due to reasons for which the employee was responsible. In addition, no written notice specifying the grounds and timing of the dismissal, as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, was provided at all.
On these grounds, the panel held that this dismissal was unfair, not only because socially acceptable just cause for dismissal was lacking, but also because there was a serious procedural defect arising from the violation of the obligation to give written notice.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee is notified of dismissal on the grounds of poor sales or declining performance, the employee should first accurately confirm the dismissal date and by what written document and for what reasons the dismissal has been communicated. Where the grounds for dismissal are vague, where the company attributes full responsibility to the employee despite significant external factors such as the company’s business structure, products, pricing policy, or market conditions, or where there is no written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal, the employee should actively consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when considering personnel measures on the grounds of poor sales performance by a sales employee, it must be borne in mind that the mere abstract statement “there are no sales” will rarely suffice to establish the legitimacy of a dismissal. The appropriateness of the sales targets, the level of support provided by the company, comparison with the performance of employees in the same or similar positions, and market conditions should be comprehensively reviewed, and the results should be organized in a way that can be substantiated with figures and documentation.
Furthermore, under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, in order to carry out a dismissal, the employer must deliver to the employee, prior to the dismissal taking effect, a written document clearly specifying the grounds and timing of the dismissal in sufficient detail for the employee to understand. The procedure cannot be replaced merely by a text message or oral notice.
Finally, even where the dismissal is not for managerial reasons such as a redundancy dismissal, every dismissal requires both “just cause” and “lawful procedure” as two concurrent pillars. On the basis of this fundamental legal principle, employers should consult in advance with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to minimize HR and labor-management risks.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether a dismissal existed
Since, after the dismissal notice dated September 25, 2025, the employer sent the employee a text message on September 30, 2025 stating that it was giving notice of dismissal and instructing the employee to work until October 30, 2025, the dismissal as of September 25, 2025 was withdrawn, and a dismissal as of October 30, 2025 existed.
(b) Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
The dismissal grounds asserted by the employer—lack of work ability (no sales)—cannot be regarded as attributable to the employee, and no evidence regarding sales figures, etc. was submitted, so the legitimacy of the dismissal cannot be recognized. In addition, the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the grounds and timing of the dismissal when dismissing the employee, and thus the procedure was unlawful.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(a) Whether a dismissal existed
Since, after the dismissal notice dated September 25, 2025, the employer sent the employee a text message on September 30, 2025 stating that it was giving notice of dismissal and instructing the employee to work until October 30, 2025, the dismissal as of September 25, 2025 was withdrawn, and a dismissal as of October 30, 2025 existed.
(b) Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
The dismissal grounds asserted by the employer—lack of work ability (no sales)—cannot be regarded as attributable to the employee, and no evidence regarding sales figures, etc. was submitted, so the legitimacy of the dismissal cannot be recognized. In addition, the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the grounds and timing of the dismissal when dismissing the employee, and thus the procedure was unlawful.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, grounds and written notice defect (sales position with poor performance), performance evaluation and poor performance, 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, “‘Denial of Employee Status (Spouse Registered as Director)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to grounds and written notice defect (sales position with poor performance) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Grounds and Written Notice Defect (Sales Position with Poor Performance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
