Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Let’s Notify in Writing (Messenger Dismissal)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 296)
- Date2026/03/19 04:04
- Read 203
[Case Information]
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “Let’s notify in writing (messenger dismissal).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9062 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of a dismissal
The employer in this case asserted that it had recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed, but there was no evidence proving that the employee consented to resign. The message sent by the employer through another staff member at around 20:35 on 1 October 2025 constitutes a unilateral termination of the employment relationship and therefore a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer claimed that it had recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed, but in reality it appeared to have unilaterally terminated the employment relationship via a messenger message. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined together (i) whether a dismissal existed, (ii) whether the dismissal was justified, and (iii) whether it was permissible to issue a monetary compensation order instead of ordering reinstatement to the original position. The Commission held that the employer’s dismissal was invalid and that a monetary compensation order was appropriate.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: where the employer claims that the employee agreed to a recommendation to resign but fails to prove it, (i) whether a notice of termination of the employment relationship sent by messenger constitutes a dismissal, and (ii) whether a dismissal is valid when the employer has not notified the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal in writing pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, although the employer argued that it had recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed, there was no evidence at all proving that the employee consented to resign. It further found that the content of the message sent by the employer through another staff member at around 20:35 on 1 October 2025 was to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship regardless of the employee’s intent and therefore constituted a “dismissal,” and that there was a serious procedural defect in the manner of dismissal because the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held to be procedurally unlawful and invalid for violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and therefore unfair.
In addition, the Commission found that the relationship of trust between the employee and the employer had already been damaged to a degree that made it difficult to continue the employment relationship. It therefore held that issuing a monetary compensation order instead of ordering reinstatement as a remedy for unfair dismissal was appropriate, and that KRW 13,131,300 was an appropriate amount of monetary compensation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the employer asserts that “you agreed to the recommendation to resign” or that “you left voluntarily,” you should not accept this if you have never clearly expressed an intention to resign. If you receive a notification via messenger, text message, email, etc. along the lines of “do not come in from today,” this may in substance constitute a dismissal. In particular, if there is no written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission on the ground of violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Furthermore, if you are asked to submit a resignation letter or to sign a consent form for mutual termination, you should not sign unless you fully understand the meaning and legal effect of such documents. Instead, you should organize the facts and seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even if you structure the termination of the employment relationship in the form of a “recommendation to resign followed by voluntary resignation,” you must bear in mind that, if there is no objective record of the employee’s clear expression of intent to resign, the termination may later be deemed a dismissal. In particular, the practice of sending an employee away by messenger or orally without preparing a separate written notice of dismissal is a direct violation of the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and you should recognize that there is a very high risk of a finding of unfair dismissal, leading to an order for monetary compensation or reinstatement.
Therefore, if it is actually necessary to dismiss an employee, first, you must prepare a written document that sets out the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal in sufficient detail for the employee to understand; second, you must establish procedures to ensure that this written notice is lawfully delivered to the employee; and third, in cases of resignation or mutual termination, you must secure written evidence such as a resignation letter or mutual termination agreement that can clearly prove the employee’s voluntary intent.
This decision of the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the issues of whether the separation was a resignation or a dismissal, and whether the obligation to provide written notice of the reasons and timing of dismissal was complied with, can determine the outcome of the case. Employers and employees who are concerned about similar cases should, from the early stages, consult with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& to organize the facts and develop a strategy for securing evidence.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of a dismissal
The employer in this case asserted that it had recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed, but there was no evidence proving that the employee consented to resign. The message sent by the employer through another staff member at around 20:35 on 1 October 2025 constitutes a unilateral termination of the employment relationship and therefore a dismissal.
B. Justification of the dismissal
The employer in this case did not notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and there was a procedural defect. Accordingly, the dismissal in this case is invalid.
C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order
As it was determined that there was no relationship of trust between the employee and the employer sufficient to continue the employment relationship, it was deemed appropriate to accept the application for a monetary compensation order, and KRW 13,131,300 was found to be an appropriate amount of monetary compensation.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of a dismissal
The employer in this case asserted that it had recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed, but there was no evidence proving that the employee consented to resign. The message sent by the employer through another staff member at around 20:35 on 1 October 2025 constitutes a unilateral termination of the employment relationship and therefore a dismissal.
B. Justification of the dismissal
The employer in this case did not notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and there was a procedural defect. Accordingly, the dismissal in this case is invalid.
C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order
As it was determined that there was no relationship of trust between the employee and the employer sufficient to continue the employment relationship, it was deemed appropriate to accept the application for a monetary compensation order, and KRW 13,131,300 was found to be an appropriate amount of monetary compensation. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Let’s notify in writing (messenger dismissal), 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management of Local Subsidies)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “Let’s notify in writing (messenger dismissal)” can be found in the “Let’s Notify in Writing (Messenger Dismissal) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “Let’s notify in writing (messenger dismissal).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9062 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of a dismissal
The employer in this case asserted that it had recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed, but there was no evidence proving that the employee consented to resign. The message sent by the employer through another staff member at around 20:35 on 1 October 2025 constitutes a unilateral termination of the employment relationship and therefore a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer claimed that it had recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed, but in reality it appeared to have unilaterally terminated the employment relationship via a messenger message. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined together (i) whether a dismissal existed, (ii) whether the dismissal was justified, and (iii) whether it was permissible to issue a monetary compensation order instead of ordering reinstatement to the original position. The Commission held that the employer’s dismissal was invalid and that a monetary compensation order was appropriate.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: where the employer claims that the employee agreed to a recommendation to resign but fails to prove it, (i) whether a notice of termination of the employment relationship sent by messenger constitutes a dismissal, and (ii) whether a dismissal is valid when the employer has not notified the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal in writing pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, although the employer argued that it had recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed, there was no evidence at all proving that the employee consented to resign. It further found that the content of the message sent by the employer through another staff member at around 20:35 on 1 October 2025 was to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship regardless of the employee’s intent and therefore constituted a “dismissal,” and that there was a serious procedural defect in the manner of dismissal because the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held to be procedurally unlawful and invalid for violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and therefore unfair.
In addition, the Commission found that the relationship of trust between the employee and the employer had already been damaged to a degree that made it difficult to continue the employment relationship. It therefore held that issuing a monetary compensation order instead of ordering reinstatement as a remedy for unfair dismissal was appropriate, and that KRW 13,131,300 was an appropriate amount of monetary compensation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the employer asserts that “you agreed to the recommendation to resign” or that “you left voluntarily,” you should not accept this if you have never clearly expressed an intention to resign. If you receive a notification via messenger, text message, email, etc. along the lines of “do not come in from today,” this may in substance constitute a dismissal. In particular, if there is no written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission on the ground of violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Furthermore, if you are asked to submit a resignation letter or to sign a consent form for mutual termination, you should not sign unless you fully understand the meaning and legal effect of such documents. Instead, you should organize the facts and seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even if you structure the termination of the employment relationship in the form of a “recommendation to resign followed by voluntary resignation,” you must bear in mind that, if there is no objective record of the employee’s clear expression of intent to resign, the termination may later be deemed a dismissal. In particular, the practice of sending an employee away by messenger or orally without preparing a separate written notice of dismissal is a direct violation of the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and you should recognize that there is a very high risk of a finding of unfair dismissal, leading to an order for monetary compensation or reinstatement.
Therefore, if it is actually necessary to dismiss an employee, first, you must prepare a written document that sets out the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal in sufficient detail for the employee to understand; second, you must establish procedures to ensure that this written notice is lawfully delivered to the employee; and third, in cases of resignation or mutual termination, you must secure written evidence such as a resignation letter or mutual termination agreement that can clearly prove the employee’s voluntary intent.
This decision of the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the issues of whether the separation was a resignation or a dismissal, and whether the obligation to provide written notice of the reasons and timing of dismissal was complied with, can determine the outcome of the case. Employers and employees who are concerned about similar cases should, from the early stages, consult with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& to organize the facts and develop a strategy for securing evidence.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of a dismissal
The employer in this case asserted that it had recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed, but there was no evidence proving that the employee consented to resign. The message sent by the employer through another staff member at around 20:35 on 1 October 2025 constitutes a unilateral termination of the employment relationship and therefore a dismissal.
B. Justification of the dismissal
The employer in this case did not notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and there was a procedural defect. Accordingly, the dismissal in this case is invalid.
C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order
As it was determined that there was no relationship of trust between the employee and the employer sufficient to continue the employment relationship, it was deemed appropriate to accept the application for a monetary compensation order, and KRW 13,131,300 was found to be an appropriate amount of monetary compensation.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of a dismissal
The employer in this case asserted that it had recommended resignation to the employee and that the employee agreed, but there was no evidence proving that the employee consented to resign. The message sent by the employer through another staff member at around 20:35 on 1 October 2025 constitutes a unilateral termination of the employment relationship and therefore a dismissal.
B. Justification of the dismissal
The employer in this case did not notify the employee in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and there was a procedural defect. Accordingly, the dismissal in this case is invalid.
C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order
As it was determined that there was no relationship of trust between the employee and the employer sufficient to continue the employment relationship, it was deemed appropriate to accept the application for a monetary compensation order, and KRW 13,131,300 was found to be an appropriate amount of monetary compensation. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Let’s notify in writing (messenger dismissal), 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management of Local Subsidies)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “Let’s notify in writing (messenger dismissal)” can be found in the “Let’s Notify in Writing (Messenger Dismissal) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
