Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Disciplinary Dismissal (“Get Out Right Now” Oral Notice) (Unfair Dismissal 277)
- Date2026/03/11 04:13
- Read 232
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full in a dispute over “disciplinary dismissal (‘get out right now’ oral notice).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9069 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Result: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted)
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the dismissal was justified: On September 8, 2025, a coworker, Kim ○○, sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “This happened so suddenly that I couldn’t even say a proper goodbye. (omitted) Honestly, it really doesn’t feel right to end things like this, so we should definitely all get together for a meal,” and on September 18, 2025, Director Lee ◇◇, the spouse of the CEO, sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “Because of the resignation processing documents and the administrative paperwork for the severance payment…”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the CEO told the employee, “There’s nothing to fill. Get out right now,” after which the employee stopped coming to work. The employer then imposed disciplinary dismissal on the grounds of unauthorized absence, leakage of confidential information, threats, and the like. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, based on KakaoTalk messages and surrounding circumstances, whether there had in substance been an expression of intent to dismiss, and whether the grounds for discipline were objectively proven. It ultimately accepted the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and found the dismissal to be unfair.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, in light of the CEO’s statement “get out right now” and the company’s subsequent conduct, the employee unilaterally engaged in unauthorized absence, or whether the employer expressed an intention to dismiss amounting to unfair dismissal, and whether the alleged grounds for discipline—leakage of confidential information, threats, insincere work attitude, etc.—were proven by objective evidence.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case took into account the coworker’s KakaoTalk message stating “it really doesn’t feel right to end things like this,” the KakaoTalk message from the CEO’s spouse referring to “resignation processing documents and administrative paperwork for the severance payment,” and the fact that, although the employee did not report to work, the employer did not, for a considerable period, urge the employee to return.
In view of these circumstances, the panel found credible the employee’s assertion that he understood the CEO’s statement “get out right now” as a notice of dismissal and therefore did not report to work. It also noted that the employer had submitted no objective supporting evidence whatsoever regarding the alleged unauthorized absence, leakage of confidential information, threats, or intentional infliction of damage. Given the general legal principle that the employer bears the burden of proving the existence of just cause for dismissal, and that such cause must be of a nature that makes it significantly difficult, by social norms, to continue the employment relationship, the panel held that the employer’s proof was manifestly insufficient. On this basis, it ruled that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, where a representative or supervisor makes a statement that can reasonably be understood as a dismissal—such as “quit” or “get out right now”—it is important to preserve, as much as possible, the subsequent conversation, messages with coworkers, calls or KakaoTalk messages with HR personnel, and any requests for resignation-related documents. In addition, if the employer’s allegations of misconduct (e.g., leakage of confidential information, threats) are untrue, the employee should organize relevant work records, messenger logs, and third-party statements in advance so they can be submitted to the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, any expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship must be made by written notice clearly stating the grounds, and the conduct of those with personnel authority must be carefully managed so that emotional remarks are not interpreted as a notice of dismissal. Furthermore, if the company intends to assert serious grounds for discipline such as leakage of confidential information, threats, or intentional infliction of damage, it should establish internal processes to systematically collect and retain objective materials capable of proving the specific facts, the resulting damage, and any violation of personnel regulations (such as reports, emails/messenger records, victim statements, and damage calculation materials).
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the dismissal was justified: On September 8, 2025, coworker Kim ○○ sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “This happened so suddenly that I couldn’t even say a proper goodbye. (omitted) Honestly, it really doesn’t feel right to end things like this, so we should definitely all get together for a meal.” On September 18, 2025, Director Lee ◇◇, the spouse of the CEO, sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “Because of the resignation processing documents and the administrative paperwork for the severance payment, I think we need to meet and talk.” Although the employee did not report to work from September 9, 2025, the employer did not send any written notices or text messages urging the employee to report to the company, nor did it make any phone calls to that effect, until around September 29, 2025, when the notice of attendance at the disciplinary committee was served. Considering these circumstances as a whole, the employee’s assertion that he did not report to the company after being told by the CEO on September 8, 2025, “There’s nothing to fill. Get out right now,” appears reasonable, whereas the employer’s assertion that it believed the employee would work until the end of September 2025 and that the employee had been absent without leave from September 9, 2025, is difficult to credit. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the employee as having unilaterally refused to report to work without just cause or the employer’s approval. There is no objective supporting evidence to prove whether the employee caused damage or loss to the company through leakage of confidential information, threatened a coworker, or deceived the company or intentionally caused damage through an insincere work attitude and work performance.
B. Whether to Accept the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order: It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order, and the proper amount of monetary compensation is determined to be KRW 5,846,460.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the dismissal was justified: On September 8, 2025, coworker Kim ○○ sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “This happened so suddenly that I couldn’t even say a proper goodbye. (omitted) Honestly, it really doesn’t feel right to end things like this, so we should definitely all get together for a meal.” On September 18, 2025, Director Lee ◇◇, the spouse of the CEO, sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “Because of the resignation processing documents and the administrative paperwork for the severance payment, I think we need to meet and talk.” Although the employee did not report to work from September 9, 2025, the employer did not send any written notices or text messages urging the employee to report to the company, nor did it make any phone calls to that effect, until around September 29, 2025, when the notice of attendance at the disciplinary committee was served. Considering these circumstances as a whole, the employee’s assertion that he did not report to the company after being told by the CEO on September 8, 2025, “There’s nothing to fill. Get out right now,” appears reasonable, whereas the employer’s assertion that it believed the employee would work until the end of September 2025 and that the employee had been absent without leave from September 9, 2025, is difficult to credit. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the employee as having unilaterally refused to report to work without just cause or the employer’s approval. There is no objective supporting evidence to prove whether the employee caused damage or loss to the company through leakage of confidential information, threatened a coworker, or deceived the company or intentionally caused damage through an insincere work attitude and work performance.
B. Whether to Accept the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order: It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order, and the proper amount of monetary compensation is determined to be KRW 5,846,460. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Phone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (“get out right now” oral notice), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Probationary Dismissal (Team Leader’s Insufficient Work Competence),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal (“get out right now” oral notice) can be viewed together on the page “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (‘Get Out Right Now’ Oral Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full in a dispute over “disciplinary dismissal (‘get out right now’ oral notice).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9069 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Result: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted)
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the dismissal was justified: On September 8, 2025, a coworker, Kim ○○, sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “This happened so suddenly that I couldn’t even say a proper goodbye. (omitted) Honestly, it really doesn’t feel right to end things like this, so we should definitely all get together for a meal,” and on September 18, 2025, Director Lee ◇◇, the spouse of the CEO, sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “Because of the resignation processing documents and the administrative paperwork for the severance payment…”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the CEO told the employee, “There’s nothing to fill. Get out right now,” after which the employee stopped coming to work. The employer then imposed disciplinary dismissal on the grounds of unauthorized absence, leakage of confidential information, threats, and the like. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, based on KakaoTalk messages and surrounding circumstances, whether there had in substance been an expression of intent to dismiss, and whether the grounds for discipline were objectively proven. It ultimately accepted the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and found the dismissal to be unfair.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether, in light of the CEO’s statement “get out right now” and the company’s subsequent conduct, the employee unilaterally engaged in unauthorized absence, or whether the employer expressed an intention to dismiss amounting to unfair dismissal, and whether the alleged grounds for discipline—leakage of confidential information, threats, insincere work attitude, etc.—were proven by objective evidence.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case took into account the coworker’s KakaoTalk message stating “it really doesn’t feel right to end things like this,” the KakaoTalk message from the CEO’s spouse referring to “resignation processing documents and administrative paperwork for the severance payment,” and the fact that, although the employee did not report to work, the employer did not, for a considerable period, urge the employee to return.
In view of these circumstances, the panel found credible the employee’s assertion that he understood the CEO’s statement “get out right now” as a notice of dismissal and therefore did not report to work. It also noted that the employer had submitted no objective supporting evidence whatsoever regarding the alleged unauthorized absence, leakage of confidential information, threats, or intentional infliction of damage. Given the general legal principle that the employer bears the burden of proving the existence of just cause for dismissal, and that such cause must be of a nature that makes it significantly difficult, by social norms, to continue the employment relationship, the panel held that the employer’s proof was manifestly insufficient. On this basis, it ruled that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, where a representative or supervisor makes a statement that can reasonably be understood as a dismissal—such as “quit” or “get out right now”—it is important to preserve, as much as possible, the subsequent conversation, messages with coworkers, calls or KakaoTalk messages with HR personnel, and any requests for resignation-related documents. In addition, if the employer’s allegations of misconduct (e.g., leakage of confidential information, threats) are untrue, the employee should organize relevant work records, messenger logs, and third-party statements in advance so they can be submitted to the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, any expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship must be made by written notice clearly stating the grounds, and the conduct of those with personnel authority must be carefully managed so that emotional remarks are not interpreted as a notice of dismissal. Furthermore, if the company intends to assert serious grounds for discipline such as leakage of confidential information, threats, or intentional infliction of damage, it should establish internal processes to systematically collect and retain objective materials capable of proving the specific facts, the resulting damage, and any violation of personnel regulations (such as reports, emails/messenger records, victim statements, and damage calculation materials).
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the dismissal was justified: On September 8, 2025, coworker Kim ○○ sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “This happened so suddenly that I couldn’t even say a proper goodbye. (omitted) Honestly, it really doesn’t feel right to end things like this, so we should definitely all get together for a meal.” On September 18, 2025, Director Lee ◇◇, the spouse of the CEO, sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “Because of the resignation processing documents and the administrative paperwork for the severance payment, I think we need to meet and talk.” Although the employee did not report to work from September 9, 2025, the employer did not send any written notices or text messages urging the employee to report to the company, nor did it make any phone calls to that effect, until around September 29, 2025, when the notice of attendance at the disciplinary committee was served. Considering these circumstances as a whole, the employee’s assertion that he did not report to the company after being told by the CEO on September 8, 2025, “There’s nothing to fill. Get out right now,” appears reasonable, whereas the employer’s assertion that it believed the employee would work until the end of September 2025 and that the employee had been absent without leave from September 9, 2025, is difficult to credit. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the employee as having unilaterally refused to report to work without just cause or the employer’s approval. There is no objective supporting evidence to prove whether the employee caused damage or loss to the company through leakage of confidential information, threatened a coworker, or deceived the company or intentionally caused damage through an insincere work attitude and work performance.
B. Whether to Accept the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order: It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order, and the proper amount of monetary compensation is determined to be KRW 5,846,460.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the dismissal was justified: On September 8, 2025, coworker Kim ○○ sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “This happened so suddenly that I couldn’t even say a proper goodbye. (omitted) Honestly, it really doesn’t feel right to end things like this, so we should definitely all get together for a meal.” On September 18, 2025, Director Lee ◇◇, the spouse of the CEO, sent the employee a KakaoTalk message stating, “Because of the resignation processing documents and the administrative paperwork for the severance payment, I think we need to meet and talk.” Although the employee did not report to work from September 9, 2025, the employer did not send any written notices or text messages urging the employee to report to the company, nor did it make any phone calls to that effect, until around September 29, 2025, when the notice of attendance at the disciplinary committee was served. Considering these circumstances as a whole, the employee’s assertion that he did not report to the company after being told by the CEO on September 8, 2025, “There’s nothing to fill. Get out right now,” appears reasonable, whereas the employer’s assertion that it believed the employee would work until the end of September 2025 and that the employee had been absent without leave from September 9, 2025, is difficult to credit. Accordingly, it is difficult to view the employee as having unilaterally refused to report to work without just cause or the employer’s approval. There is no objective supporting evidence to prove whether the employee caused damage or loss to the company through leakage of confidential information, threatened a coworker, or deceived the company or intentionally caused damage through an insincere work attitude and work performance.
B. Whether to Accept the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order: It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order, and the proper amount of monetary compensation is determined to be KRW 5,846,460. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Phone Call)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (“get out right now” oral notice), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Probationary Dismissal (Team Leader’s Insufficient Work Competence),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal (“get out right now” oral notice) can be viewed together on the page “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (‘Get Out Right Now’ Oral Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
