Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Defect in Written Notice (Dismissal Notice)” (Unfair Dismissal 260)
- Date2026/03/06 04:04
- Read 230
[Case Information]
This case is a decision precedent in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “defect in written notice (dismissal notice).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9055 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.16 · Result: Fully accepted
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of dismissal
In light of the circumstances under which the employer sent the dismissal notice to the employee on 25 September 2025, the legal provisions and internal rules cited therein, the reasons stated in the notice, and the reason for loss of employment reported by the employer to the employment insurance authority, it was determined that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent. Accordingly, a dismissal exists.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a situation where the employer sent a dismissal notice to the employee, then reported the reason for loss of employment to the employment insurance authority, and thereafter treated the employment relationship as terminated. The Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, and whether the dismissal procedure complied with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. This decision is illustrative of recurring issues in numerous unfair dismissal and redundancy disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether the employment relationship is deemed to have been terminated by dismissal solely on the basis of sending a dismissal notice and filing a loss-of-employment report with the employment insurance authority, and whether, in that process, the employer properly provided written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. In other words, although there was a dismissal notice in form, the core question was whether it satisfied the statutory requirements for “written notice of dismissal,” and, if not, whether the dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that, considering the circumstances under which the employer sent the dismissal notice to the employee on 25 September 2025, the legal provisions and work rules cited therein, the reasons stated in the notice, and the fact that the employer reported “dismissal” as the reason for loss of employment to the employment insurance authority, the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, irrespective of the employee’s will.
Furthermore, taking into account the legislative purpose of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which requires written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the principle that a dismissal becomes effective only when written notice is given in accordance with Article 27, and the existence in this case of a procedural defect in that the timing of the dismissal was not lawfully notified in writing, the panel held that this dismissal disposition was procedurally unlawful and unfair even before reaching the stage of assessing its substantive justification.
The dismissal disposition in this case was held to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if the employer, by any means—such as a dismissal notice, text message, or oral communication—conveys the purport of “do not come to work anymore,” and subsequently reports “dismissal” as the reason for loss of employment to the employment insurance authority, it is necessary to closely examine whether a dismissal in substance exists.
It is also important to carefully check whether the dismissal notice clearly states not only the reason for dismissal but also “from when the dismissal becomes effective,” and whether that written notice was actually delivered to you. Even such procedural defects alone can provide substantial grounds for obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, it is important to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and organize relevant materials, including the dismissal notice, HR documents, and records of loss-of-coverage reports for the four major social insurances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when deciding on dismissal, it is essential first to strictly comply with the form and procedures required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, even before considering the existence and substantive justification of the grounds for dismissal.
In particular, employers should not confuse dismissal notice (advance notice) with the written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. They should establish internal rules and practical processes to ensure that a written document specifying the effective date of dismissal is prepared in the name of a person with proper authority and lawfully delivered to the employee.
In addition, when reporting “dismissal” as the reason for loss of employment to the employment insurance authority, employers should verify in advance that a written document stating the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal has been lawfully provided to the employee, thereby minimizing the risk of an unfair dismissal finding due to procedural defects.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of dismissal
In light of the circumstances under which the employer sent the dismissal notice to the employee on 25 September 2025, the legal provisions and internal rules cited therein, the reasons stated in the notice, and the reason for loss of employment reported by the employer to the employment insurance authority, it was determined that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent. Accordingly, a dismissal exists.
B. Justification of dismissal
Since there was a procedural defect in that, when dismissing the employee, the employer failed to provide written notice of the timing of dismissal as prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Existence of dismissal
In light of the circumstances under which the employer sent the dismissal notice to the employee on 25 September 2025, the legal provisions and internal rules cited therein, the reasons stated in the notice, and the reason for loss of employment reported by the employer to the employment insurance authority, it was determined that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent. Accordingly, a dismissal exists.
B. Justification of dismissal
Since there was a procedural defect in that, when dismissing the employee, the employer failed to provide written notice of the timing of dismissal as prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (dismissal notice), 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 Decision Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Offer of Mutual Termination (Unpaid Leave · Resignation by Text Message)’ – Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal,” in a new window.
※ The list of decision precedents relating to defect in written notice (dismissal notice) can be viewed together at “List of Decision Precedents on Defect in Written Notice (Dismissal Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision precedent in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “defect in written notice (dismissal notice).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9055 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.16 · Result: Fully accepted
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of dismissal
In light of the circumstances under which the employer sent the dismissal notice to the employee on 25 September 2025, the legal provisions and internal rules cited therein, the reasons stated in the notice, and the reason for loss of employment reported by the employer to the employment insurance authority, it was determined that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent. Accordingly, a dismissal exists.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a situation where the employer sent a dismissal notice to the employee, then reported the reason for loss of employment to the employment insurance authority, and thereafter treated the employment relationship as terminated. The Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, and whether the dismissal procedure complied with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. This decision is illustrative of recurring issues in numerous unfair dismissal and redundancy disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether the employment relationship is deemed to have been terminated by dismissal solely on the basis of sending a dismissal notice and filing a loss-of-employment report with the employment insurance authority, and whether, in that process, the employer properly provided written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. In other words, although there was a dismissal notice in form, the core question was whether it satisfied the statutory requirements for “written notice of dismissal,” and, if not, whether the dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that, considering the circumstances under which the employer sent the dismissal notice to the employee on 25 September 2025, the legal provisions and work rules cited therein, the reasons stated in the notice, and the fact that the employer reported “dismissal” as the reason for loss of employment to the employment insurance authority, the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, irrespective of the employee’s will.
Furthermore, taking into account the legislative purpose of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which requires written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the principle that a dismissal becomes effective only when written notice is given in accordance with Article 27, and the existence in this case of a procedural defect in that the timing of the dismissal was not lawfully notified in writing, the panel held that this dismissal disposition was procedurally unlawful and unfair even before reaching the stage of assessing its substantive justification.
The dismissal disposition in this case was held to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if the employer, by any means—such as a dismissal notice, text message, or oral communication—conveys the purport of “do not come to work anymore,” and subsequently reports “dismissal” as the reason for loss of employment to the employment insurance authority, it is necessary to closely examine whether a dismissal in substance exists.
It is also important to carefully check whether the dismissal notice clearly states not only the reason for dismissal but also “from when the dismissal becomes effective,” and whether that written notice was actually delivered to you. Even such procedural defects alone can provide substantial grounds for obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, it is important to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and organize relevant materials, including the dismissal notice, HR documents, and records of loss-of-coverage reports for the four major social insurances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when deciding on dismissal, it is essential first to strictly comply with the form and procedures required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, even before considering the existence and substantive justification of the grounds for dismissal.
In particular, employers should not confuse dismissal notice (advance notice) with the written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. They should establish internal rules and practical processes to ensure that a written document specifying the effective date of dismissal is prepared in the name of a person with proper authority and lawfully delivered to the employee.
In addition, when reporting “dismissal” as the reason for loss of employment to the employment insurance authority, employers should verify in advance that a written document stating the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal has been lawfully provided to the employee, thereby minimizing the risk of an unfair dismissal finding due to procedural defects.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of dismissal
In light of the circumstances under which the employer sent the dismissal notice to the employee on 25 September 2025, the legal provisions and internal rules cited therein, the reasons stated in the notice, and the reason for loss of employment reported by the employer to the employment insurance authority, it was determined that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent. Accordingly, a dismissal exists.
B. Justification of dismissal
Since there was a procedural defect in that, when dismissing the employee, the employer failed to provide written notice of the timing of dismissal as prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Existence of dismissal
In light of the circumstances under which the employer sent the dismissal notice to the employee on 25 September 2025, the legal provisions and internal rules cited therein, the reasons stated in the notice, and the reason for loss of employment reported by the employer to the employment insurance authority, it was determined that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent. Accordingly, a dismissal exists.
B. Justification of dismissal
Since there was a procedural defect in that, when dismissing the employee, the employer failed to provide written notice of the timing of dismissal as prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal”
- “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (dismissal notice), 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 Decision Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Offer of Mutual Termination (Unpaid Leave · Resignation by Text Message)’ – Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal,” in a new window.
※ The list of decision precedents relating to defect in written notice (dismissal notice) can be viewed together at “List of Decision Precedents on Defect in Written Notice (Dismissal Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
