Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Existence of Dismissal · Written Notice (Employer’s Allegation of Mutual Resignation)” (Unfair Dismissal 289)
- Date2026/03/16 04:12
- Read 203
This case on the issue of “existence of dismissal · written notice (employer’s allegation of mutual resignation)” ended with a full win for the employee in an unfair dismissal decision.
Decision Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9120 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Outcome: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of dismissal: The employer argued that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement with the employee, but there was no supporting evidence, and the employer voluntarily waived the opportunity to prove this assertion. It was found that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, while the employer argued that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement with the employee. The Labor Relations Commission examined together (i) whether a dismissal existed, (ii) whether the dismissal was justified, and (iii) whether to accept the employee’s request for a monetary compensation order in lieu of reinstatement to the original position.
The employee requested monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, and the Commission calculated the amount of monetary compensation as KRW 7,671,210, obtained by deducting interim earnings, etc. from the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “whether, in a situation where the employer alleges a ‘mutual resignation,’ there was in fact a unilateral dismissal, and whether a dismissal without written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal is valid under the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employer, while asserting mutual termination of the employment contract with the employee, submitted no evidence to support this assertion and voluntarily waived the opportunity to provide such proof, and that it was established that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship.
The Commission therefore held that the termination of the employment relationship was not by mutual agreement but constituted a dismissal based solely on the employer’s unilateral intent. Furthermore, the reasons for dismissal alleged by the employer had no substance, and the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, thereby not satisfying the formal written-notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. In light of this procedural defect and the resulting infringement of the employee’s right to defend themself, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
In addition, since the employee requested a monetary compensation order in lieu of reinstatement, the Commission accepted this request and set the amount of monetary compensation at KRW 7,671,210, calculated by deducting interim earnings, etc. from the amount equivalent to wages that should have been paid during the dismissal period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if the employer insists that “you left by mutual agreement,” if in reality there was a unilateral notice of termination, the Labor Relations Commission may recognize the existence of a dismissal. To argue that the termination was a dismissal rather than a mutual resignation, it is important to secure as much objective evidence as possible, such as whether a resignation letter was prepared, the circumstances under which it was prepared, and the manner in which the termination was communicated.
If the employer did not provide a written document stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal may constitute an unfair dismissal due to a serious procedural defect. Accordingly, you should organize and preserve records of the actual timing and content of the dismissal notice through text messages, messenger logs, recordings, etc. If you do not wish to be reinstated, you may, as in this case, consider applying to the Labor Relations Commission for a monetary compensation order in lieu of reinstatement.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the legal requirements and risks differ significantly depending on whether the termination of the employment relationship is characterized as resignation/mutual termination or dismissal. Therefore, if you intend to rely on “mutual resignation,” you must retain written documents and records that can prove the process and content of the agreement. In particular, in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, you should prepare and maintain templates for resignation letters, mutual termination agreements, interview records, and similar documentation.
Furthermore, when carrying out a dismissal, the employer must not only have just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, but also, pursuant to Article 27, must provide the employee, prior to the dismissal taking effect, with a written document specifically stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Practices of terminating employment solely by verbal notice or by filing only the loss-of-coverage report for the four major social insurances must be corrected. If a dismissal is found to be unfair, the employer may incur additional burdens such as payment of wages equivalent to the dismissal period, monetary compensation orders, and enforcement fines.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement with the employee; however, there was no evidence to support this, the employer voluntarily waived the opportunity to provide proof, and it was found that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship.
B. Justifiability of the Dismissal
The reasons for dismissal alleged by the employer with respect to the employee had no substance, and the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, rendering the dismissal unfair.
C. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
Since the employee applied for a monetary compensation order in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, the application is accepted, and the amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 7,671,210, obtained by deducting interim earnings, etc. from the amount equivalent to wages during the dismissal period.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement with the employee; however, there was no evidence to support this, the employer voluntarily waived the opportunity to provide proof, and it was found that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship.
B. Justifiability of the Dismissal
The reasons for dismissal alleged by the employer with respect to the employee had no substance, and the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, rendering the dismissal unfair.
C. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
Since the employee applied for a monetary compensation order in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, the application is accepted, and the amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 7,671,210, obtained by deducting interim earnings, etc. from the amount equivalent to wages during the dismissal period. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Suspension from Duty · Standby Order Recording)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Cleaner)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal · written notice (employer’s allegation of mutual resignation), 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 Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Cleaner)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal · written notice (employer’s allegation of mutual resignation) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal · Written Notice (Employer’s Allegation of Mutual Resignation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9120 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Outcome: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of dismissal: The employer argued that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement with the employee, but there was no supporting evidence, and the employer voluntarily waived the opportunity to prove this assertion. It was found that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, while the employer argued that the employment relationship had been terminated by mutual agreement with the employee. The Labor Relations Commission examined together (i) whether a dismissal existed, (ii) whether the dismissal was justified, and (iii) whether to accept the employee’s request for a monetary compensation order in lieu of reinstatement to the original position.
The employee requested monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, and the Commission calculated the amount of monetary compensation as KRW 7,671,210, obtained by deducting interim earnings, etc. from the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “whether, in a situation where the employer alleges a ‘mutual resignation,’ there was in fact a unilateral dismissal, and whether a dismissal without written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal is valid under the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employer, while asserting mutual termination of the employment contract with the employee, submitted no evidence to support this assertion and voluntarily waived the opportunity to provide such proof, and that it was established that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship.
The Commission therefore held that the termination of the employment relationship was not by mutual agreement but constituted a dismissal based solely on the employer’s unilateral intent. Furthermore, the reasons for dismissal alleged by the employer had no substance, and the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, thereby not satisfying the formal written-notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. In light of this procedural defect and the resulting infringement of the employee’s right to defend themself, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
In addition, since the employee requested a monetary compensation order in lieu of reinstatement, the Commission accepted this request and set the amount of monetary compensation at KRW 7,671,210, calculated by deducting interim earnings, etc. from the amount equivalent to wages that should have been paid during the dismissal period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even if the employer insists that “you left by mutual agreement,” if in reality there was a unilateral notice of termination, the Labor Relations Commission may recognize the existence of a dismissal. To argue that the termination was a dismissal rather than a mutual resignation, it is important to secure as much objective evidence as possible, such as whether a resignation letter was prepared, the circumstances under which it was prepared, and the manner in which the termination was communicated.
If the employer did not provide a written document stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal may constitute an unfair dismissal due to a serious procedural defect. Accordingly, you should organize and preserve records of the actual timing and content of the dismissal notice through text messages, messenger logs, recordings, etc. If you do not wish to be reinstated, you may, as in this case, consider applying to the Labor Relations Commission for a monetary compensation order in lieu of reinstatement.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the legal requirements and risks differ significantly depending on whether the termination of the employment relationship is characterized as resignation/mutual termination or dismissal. Therefore, if you intend to rely on “mutual resignation,” you must retain written documents and records that can prove the process and content of the agreement. In particular, in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, you should prepare and maintain templates for resignation letters, mutual termination agreements, interview records, and similar documentation.
Furthermore, when carrying out a dismissal, the employer must not only have just cause under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, but also, pursuant to Article 27, must provide the employee, prior to the dismissal taking effect, with a written document specifically stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Practices of terminating employment solely by verbal notice or by filing only the loss-of-coverage report for the four major social insurances must be corrected. If a dismissal is found to be unfair, the employer may incur additional burdens such as payment of wages equivalent to the dismissal period, monetary compensation orders, and enforcement fines.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement with the employee; however, there was no evidence to support this, the employer voluntarily waived the opportunity to provide proof, and it was found that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship.
B. Justifiability of the Dismissal
The reasons for dismissal alleged by the employer with respect to the employee had no substance, and the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, rendering the dismissal unfair.
C. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
Since the employee applied for a monetary compensation order in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, the application is accepted, and the amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 7,671,210, obtained by deducting interim earnings, etc. from the amount equivalent to wages during the dismissal period.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Dismissal
The employer argued that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement with the employee; however, there was no evidence to support this, the employer voluntarily waived the opportunity to provide proof, and it was found that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of the termination of the employment relationship.
B. Justifiability of the Dismissal
The reasons for dismissal alleged by the employer with respect to the employee had no substance, and the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, rendering the dismissal unfair.
C. Acceptance of the Application for a Monetary Compensation Order
Since the employee applied for a monetary compensation order in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, the application is accepted, and the amount of monetary compensation is calculated as KRW 7,671,210, obtained by deducting interim earnings, etc. from the amount equivalent to wages during the dismissal period. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Suspension from Duty · Standby Order Recording)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Cleaner)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal · written notice (employer’s allegation of mutual resignation), 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 Case on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Cleaner)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal · written notice (employer’s allegation of mutual resignation) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal · Written Notice (Employer’s Allegation of Mutual Resignation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
