Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Defect in Written Notice (Report of Loss of Four Major Insurances)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 247)
- Date2026/03/01 04:12
- Read 222
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defect in written notice (report of loss of four major insurances).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae250 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.20 · Result: Fully upheld
Summary of key issue:
A. Legitimacy of the dismissal – Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, where an employer intends to dismiss a worker, the employer shall notify the worker in writing of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal, and that a dismissal in violation of this requirement shall be invalid.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract without issuing a separate written notice of dismissal and effectively dismissed the employee by filing a report of loss of insured status under the four major social insurances and similar measures. The issue was whether this constituted an unfair dismissal. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, seeking a monetary compensation order instead of reinstatement to the original position. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined both whether the dismissal was unfair and whether to grant the request for a monetary compensation order.
The employee subsequently found employment with another company. The Commission took this circumstance and the occurrence of interim earnings into account and set out in detail the method for calculating the monetary compensation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: (i) whether termination of the employment contract solely through de facto measures such as filing a report of loss of insured status under the four major social insurances, without written notice of the reasons for and timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, constitutes a valid dismissal; and (ii) if the dismissal is found to be unfair, how to handle a monetary compensation order and the deduction of interim earnings.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employer had in substance dismissed the employee by unilaterally terminating the employment relationship, yet had not provided any written notice of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; that there was no document from which the existence, timing, and reasons for the dismissal could be clearly ascertained; and that, under the purport of Supreme Court precedents, a written notice of dismissal cannot be supplemented ex post facto.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was a null and void measure that failed to produce legal effect due to a serious procedural defect, and thus constituted an unfair dismissal.
In addition, the employee had expressly sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, and had obtained employment with another employer from a certain point in time after the dismissal, thereby earning interim income. The Commission also took into account Supreme Court precedents establishing the legal principle that, for periods during which interim income is earned, the employer is liable only up to an amount equivalent to a suspension allowance (70% of ordinary wages).
On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Furthermore, the Commission accepted the application for a monetary compensation order, but found it appropriate to calculate the compensation such that, for periods during which interim income was earned, only 70% of the wage-equivalent amount, rather than the full amount of wages, would be recognized as monetary compensation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If you have received only a text message or oral notice and a report of loss of insured status under the four major insurances, without any written notice of dismissal, you should actively consider the possibility of an unfair dismissal based on a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. When filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, it is advantageous to clearly choose whether you seek reinstatement or monetary compensation, and to organize in advance the details of any interim earnings obtained from other employment during the dismissal period (such as pay slips and employment contracts).
You should also understand that, if a monetary compensation order is issued, for periods during which interim income exists, the general principle is that only 70% of the wage-equivalent amount, rather than 100% of wages, may be recognized. Based on this, you should realistically calculate the scope of compensation you can expect.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
When dismissing an employee, the employer must provide in advance a written notice specifying the reasons for and timing of the dismissal. Employers must not assume that the employment relationship is lawfully terminated merely by filing a report of loss of insured status under the four major insurances or by barring the employee from reporting to work. Employers should bear in mind that such procedural violations can directly lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. The written notice of dismissal must be drafted in sufficient detail for the employee to understand, from the employee’s perspective, for what reasons and as of when they are being dismissed. Because ex post facto supplementation by backdating is not permitted, HR and labor management personnel should establish a standard dismissal notice form and internal approval procedures without fail.
In addition, if a monetary compensation order is issued, interim earnings obtained by the employee from other employment during the dismissal period will be deducted. In particular, for such periods, only up to 70% of the wage-equivalent amount may be recognized as monetary compensation, in line with the purport of Supreme Court precedents. From the employer’s perspective, systematic management of interim earnings data and the basis for wage calculation is important to reduce dispute-related costs.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Dismissal
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, where an employer intends to dismiss a worker, the employer shall notify the worker in writing of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal, and that a dismissal in violation of this requirement shall be invalid. In this case, the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship and dismissed the employee, but failed to comply with the statutory obligation to provide written notice of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal.
B. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement and obtained employment with another employer as of 2025.12.10, the Commission accepts the application for a monetary compensation order. When calculating the monetary compensation, for periods during which interim income was earned, it is appropriate, in accordance with the legal principles established by Supreme Court precedents, to recognize as monetary compensation an amount equivalent to 70% of the wage-equivalent amount, i.e., the amount corresponding to a suspension allowance.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Legitimacy of the Dismissal
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, where an employer intends to dismiss a worker, the employer shall notify the worker in writing of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal, and that a dismissal in violation of this requirement shall be invalid. In this case, the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship and dismissed the employee, but failed to comply with the statutory obligation to provide written notice of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal.
B. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement and obtained employment with another employer as of 2025.12.10, the Commission accepts the application for a monetary compensation order. When calculating the monetary compensation, for periods during which interim income was earned, it is appropriate, in accordance with the legal principles established by Supreme Court precedents, to recognize as monetary compensation an amount equivalent to 70% of the wage-equivalent amount, i.e., the amount corresponding to a suspension allowance. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Automatic Termination (Unexcused Absence of 5 Days or More)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (report of loss of four major insurances), 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, “‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Reprimand After Submission of Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to defect in written notice (report of loss of four major insurances) at “List of Decisions Related to Defect in Written Notice (Report of Loss of Four Major Insurances).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defect in written notice (report of loss of four major insurances).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae250 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.20 · Result: Fully upheld
Summary of key issue:
A. Legitimacy of the dismissal – Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, where an employer intends to dismiss a worker, the employer shall notify the worker in writing of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal, and that a dismissal in violation of this requirement shall be invalid.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract without issuing a separate written notice of dismissal and effectively dismissed the employee by filing a report of loss of insured status under the four major social insurances and similar measures. The issue was whether this constituted an unfair dismissal. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, seeking a monetary compensation order instead of reinstatement to the original position. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined both whether the dismissal was unfair and whether to grant the request for a monetary compensation order.
The employee subsequently found employment with another company. The Commission took this circumstance and the occurrence of interim earnings into account and set out in detail the method for calculating the monetary compensation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: (i) whether termination of the employment contract solely through de facto measures such as filing a report of loss of insured status under the four major social insurances, without written notice of the reasons for and timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, constitutes a valid dismissal; and (ii) if the dismissal is found to be unfair, how to handle a monetary compensation order and the deduction of interim earnings.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employer had in substance dismissed the employee by unilaterally terminating the employment relationship, yet had not provided any written notice of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; that there was no document from which the existence, timing, and reasons for the dismissal could be clearly ascertained; and that, under the purport of Supreme Court precedents, a written notice of dismissal cannot be supplemented ex post facto.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was a null and void measure that failed to produce legal effect due to a serious procedural defect, and thus constituted an unfair dismissal.
In addition, the employee had expressly sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, and had obtained employment with another employer from a certain point in time after the dismissal, thereby earning interim income. The Commission also took into account Supreme Court precedents establishing the legal principle that, for periods during which interim income is earned, the employer is liable only up to an amount equivalent to a suspension allowance (70% of ordinary wages).
On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Furthermore, the Commission accepted the application for a monetary compensation order, but found it appropriate to calculate the compensation such that, for periods during which interim income was earned, only 70% of the wage-equivalent amount, rather than the full amount of wages, would be recognized as monetary compensation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If you have received only a text message or oral notice and a report of loss of insured status under the four major insurances, without any written notice of dismissal, you should actively consider the possibility of an unfair dismissal based on a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. When filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, it is advantageous to clearly choose whether you seek reinstatement or monetary compensation, and to organize in advance the details of any interim earnings obtained from other employment during the dismissal period (such as pay slips and employment contracts).
You should also understand that, if a monetary compensation order is issued, for periods during which interim income exists, the general principle is that only 70% of the wage-equivalent amount, rather than 100% of wages, may be recognized. Based on this, you should realistically calculate the scope of compensation you can expect.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
When dismissing an employee, the employer must provide in advance a written notice specifying the reasons for and timing of the dismissal. Employers must not assume that the employment relationship is lawfully terminated merely by filing a report of loss of insured status under the four major insurances or by barring the employee from reporting to work. Employers should bear in mind that such procedural violations can directly lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. The written notice of dismissal must be drafted in sufficient detail for the employee to understand, from the employee’s perspective, for what reasons and as of when they are being dismissed. Because ex post facto supplementation by backdating is not permitted, HR and labor management personnel should establish a standard dismissal notice form and internal approval procedures without fail.
In addition, if a monetary compensation order is issued, interim earnings obtained by the employee from other employment during the dismissal period will be deducted. In particular, for such periods, only up to 70% of the wage-equivalent amount may be recognized as monetary compensation, in line with the purport of Supreme Court precedents. From the employer’s perspective, systematic management of interim earnings data and the basis for wage calculation is important to reduce dispute-related costs.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Dismissal
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, where an employer intends to dismiss a worker, the employer shall notify the worker in writing of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal, and that a dismissal in violation of this requirement shall be invalid. In this case, the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship and dismissed the employee, but failed to comply with the statutory obligation to provide written notice of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal.
B. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement and obtained employment with another employer as of 2025.12.10, the Commission accepts the application for a monetary compensation order. When calculating the monetary compensation, for periods during which interim income was earned, it is appropriate, in accordance with the legal principles established by Supreme Court precedents, to recognize as monetary compensation an amount equivalent to 70% of the wage-equivalent amount, i.e., the amount corresponding to a suspension allowance.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Legitimacy of the Dismissal
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, where an employer intends to dismiss a worker, the employer shall notify the worker in writing of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal, and that a dismissal in violation of this requirement shall be invalid. In this case, the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship and dismissed the employee, but failed to comply with the statutory obligation to provide written notice of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal.
B. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement and obtained employment with another employer as of 2025.12.10, the Commission accepts the application for a monetary compensation order. When calculating the monetary compensation, for periods during which interim income was earned, it is appropriate, in accordance with the legal principles established by Supreme Court precedents, to recognize as monetary compensation an amount equivalent to 70% of the wage-equivalent amount, i.e., the amount corresponding to a suspension allowance. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Automatic Termination (Unexcused Absence of 5 Days or More)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (report of loss of four major insurances), 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, “‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Reprimand After Submission of Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to defect in written notice (report of loss of four major insurances) at “List of Decisions Related to Defect in Written Notice (Report of Loss of Four Major Insurances).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
