Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Existence of Dismissal (Leaving the Workplace After Assault on Mother-in-Law · Transfer to Own Account)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 226)
- Date2026/02/22 04:12
- Read 227
[Case Information]
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision on the issue of “existence of dismissal (leaving the workplace after assault on mother-in-law · transfer to own account),” which concluded with a ruling in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application).
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9830 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.02 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee argued that, because the employer assaulted the employee’s mother-in-law and took no protective measures, the employee was inevitably forced to leave the workplace, which was no different from an unfair dismissal. However, the employer had never expressed any intention to dismiss the employee. On the day after the assault, the employee, who was in charge of accounting at the company, transferred the retirement allowance and wages up to the last working day to the employee’s own bank account without the employer’s permission, left the workplace, and did not return to work thereafter...
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee claimed before the Labor Relations Commission that, after the employee’s mother-in-law was assaulted by the employer and no protective measures were provided, the employee had no choice but to leave the company, which in substance was no different from an unfair dismissal.
The employer, however, argued that it had never expressed any intention to dismiss the employee and that, on the contrary, the employee, as the person in charge of accounting, unilaterally transferred the retirement allowance and final wages to the employee’s own bank account and then left the workplace without permission and stopped coming to work.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, in the absence of any explicit expression of intent to dismiss by the employer, a situation where the employee, following an assault incident, independently transfers the retirement allowance and wages and ceases to report to work can nonetheless be regarded as an “unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel found that there was no objective evidence or circumstances indicating that the employer had expressed an intention to dismiss the employee; that, on the day after the assault incident, the employee, as the person in charge of accounting, transferred the retirement allowance and wages up to the last working day to the employee’s own bank account without the employer’s permission; and that, thereafter, the employee left the workplace without any particular consultation or resignation procedure and did not return to work.
Accordingly, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and therefore unfair dismissal could not be established.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees who wish to contest unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission must be able to prove that the termination was a unilateral termination by the employer, whether the employer’s intention to dismiss was explicit or implicit. In particular, actions such as independently settling one’s own retirement allowance and wages and ceasing to report to work are highly likely to be interpreted in subsequent disputes as resignation or voluntary departure.
Therefore, even in cases involving serious circumstances such as assault or workplace harassment, employees should first raise the issue with the company and request protective measures, and, if necessary, consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& before taking further steps.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even if there is no actual intention to dismiss, failure to take any protective or follow-up measures in the face of serious conflict situations such as assault incidents may lead employees to perceive the situation as “de facto expulsion,” which can in turn develop into an unfair dismissal dispute.
In addition, where an employee in charge of accounting or finance arbitrarily transfers their own wages or retirement allowance and then leaves, the employer should immediately record the facts in writing and clearly notify the employee of the company’s position regarding the employment relationship and urge the employee to return to work. Doing so will facilitate the employer’s defense before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts if the existence of a dismissal later becomes an issue.
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission once again demonstrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, not only explicit dismissals such as redundancy dismissals but also other forms of termination of employment—resignation, unauthorized departure, and mutual termination—must be strictly distinguished and proven.
For those preparing for unfair dismissal proceedings and Labor Relations Commission procedures, it is important from the outset to systematically organize the factual circumstances and the flow of expressions of intent, and, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to secure key evidence that distinguishes dismissal from resignation.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that, because the employer assaulted the employee’s mother-in-law and took no protective measures, the employee was inevitably forced to leave the workplace, which was no different from an unfair dismissal. However, there was no fact that the employer expressed any intention to dismiss the employee. On the day after the assault, the employee, who was in charge of accounting at the company, transferred the retirement allowance and wages up to the last working day to the employee’s own bank account without the employer’s permission, left the workplace, and did not return to work thereafter. Accordingly, no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee argued that, because the employer assaulted the employee’s mother-in-law and took no protective measures, the employee was inevitably forced to leave the workplace, which was no different from an unfair dismissal. However, there was no fact that the employer expressed any intention to dismiss the employee. On the day after the assault, the employee, who was in charge of accounting at the company, transferred the retirement allowance and wages up to the last working day to the employee’s own bank account without the employer’s permission, left the workplace, and did not return to work thereafter. Accordingly, no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Conversation)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Sanction Level (Leaving Work/Workplace)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Procedure and Sanction Level (Sexual Harassment · Termination by Agreement)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (leaving the workplace after assault on mother-in-law · transfer to own account), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Procedure and Sanction Level (Sexual Harassment · Termination by Agreement),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “existence of dismissal (leaving the workplace after assault on mother-in-law · transfer to own account)” can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Leaving the Workplace After Assault on Mother-in-Law · Transfer to Own Account).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision on the issue of “existence of dismissal (leaving the workplace after assault on mother-in-law · transfer to own account),” which concluded with a ruling in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application).
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9830 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.02 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee argued that, because the employer assaulted the employee’s mother-in-law and took no protective measures, the employee was inevitably forced to leave the workplace, which was no different from an unfair dismissal. However, the employer had never expressed any intention to dismiss the employee. On the day after the assault, the employee, who was in charge of accounting at the company, transferred the retirement allowance and wages up to the last working day to the employee’s own bank account without the employer’s permission, left the workplace, and did not return to work thereafter...
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employee claimed before the Labor Relations Commission that, after the employee’s mother-in-law was assaulted by the employer and no protective measures were provided, the employee had no choice but to leave the company, which in substance was no different from an unfair dismissal.
The employer, however, argued that it had never expressed any intention to dismiss the employee and that, on the contrary, the employee, as the person in charge of accounting, unilaterally transferred the retirement allowance and final wages to the employee’s own bank account and then left the workplace without permission and stopped coming to work.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether, in the absence of any explicit expression of intent to dismiss by the employer, a situation where the employee, following an assault incident, independently transfers the retirement allowance and wages and ceases to report to work can nonetheless be regarded as an “unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel found that there was no objective evidence or circumstances indicating that the employer had expressed an intention to dismiss the employee; that, on the day after the assault incident, the employee, as the person in charge of accounting, transferred the retirement allowance and wages up to the last working day to the employee’s own bank account without the employer’s permission; and that, thereafter, the employee left the workplace without any particular consultation or resignation procedure and did not return to work.
Accordingly, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and therefore unfair dismissal could not be established.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees who wish to contest unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission must be able to prove that the termination was a unilateral termination by the employer, whether the employer’s intention to dismiss was explicit or implicit. In particular, actions such as independently settling one’s own retirement allowance and wages and ceasing to report to work are highly likely to be interpreted in subsequent disputes as resignation or voluntary departure.
Therefore, even in cases involving serious circumstances such as assault or workplace harassment, employees should first raise the issue with the company and request protective measures, and, if necessary, consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& before taking further steps.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even if there is no actual intention to dismiss, failure to take any protective or follow-up measures in the face of serious conflict situations such as assault incidents may lead employees to perceive the situation as “de facto expulsion,” which can in turn develop into an unfair dismissal dispute.
In addition, where an employee in charge of accounting or finance arbitrarily transfers their own wages or retirement allowance and then leaves, the employer should immediately record the facts in writing and clearly notify the employee of the company’s position regarding the employment relationship and urge the employee to return to work. Doing so will facilitate the employer’s defense before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts if the existence of a dismissal later becomes an issue.
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission once again demonstrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, not only explicit dismissals such as redundancy dismissals but also other forms of termination of employment—resignation, unauthorized departure, and mutual termination—must be strictly distinguished and proven.
For those preparing for unfair dismissal proceedings and Labor Relations Commission procedures, it is important from the outset to systematically organize the factual circumstances and the flow of expressions of intent, and, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to secure key evidence that distinguishes dismissal from resignation.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that, because the employer assaulted the employee’s mother-in-law and took no protective measures, the employee was inevitably forced to leave the workplace, which was no different from an unfair dismissal. However, there was no fact that the employer expressed any intention to dismiss the employee. On the day after the assault, the employee, who was in charge of accounting at the company, transferred the retirement allowance and wages up to the last working day to the employee’s own bank account without the employer’s permission, left the workplace, and did not return to work thereafter. Accordingly, no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee argued that, because the employer assaulted the employee’s mother-in-law and took no protective measures, the employee was inevitably forced to leave the workplace, which was no different from an unfair dismissal. However, there was no fact that the employer expressed any intention to dismiss the employee. On the day after the assault, the employee, who was in charge of accounting at the company, transferred the retirement allowance and wages up to the last working day to the employee’s own bank account without the employer’s permission, left the workplace, and did not return to work thereafter. Accordingly, no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Conversation)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Sanction Level (Leaving Work/Workplace)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Procedure and Sanction Level (Sexual Harassment · Termination by Agreement)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (leaving the workplace after assault on mother-in-law · transfer to own account), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Procedure and Sanction Level (Sexual Harassment · Termination by Agreement),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “existence of dismissal (leaving the workplace after assault on mother-in-law · transfer to own account)” can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Leaving the Workplace After Assault on Mother-in-Law · Transfer to Own Account).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
