Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk Message)” (Unfair Dismissal 424)
- Date2026/05/02 04:13
- Read 137
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk message).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae21 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.04.01 · Case Result: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employer sent the employee messages stating, “Just hand over your work to OO and ◎◎ and find a place that suits your disposition,” and “From now on, my mind will never change.” These messages can only be regarded, under social norms, as an expression of intent to dismiss. Thereafter, the employer sent a message instructing the employee to hand over duties, then provisionally attached the employee’s deposit claims and sent a content-certified letter announcing forthcoming civil and criminal measures, and in light of these facts, etc., …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employer notified the employee via KakaoTalk and other messages, stating “Just hand over your work to OO and ◎◎ and find a place that suits your disposition,” and “From now on, my mind will never change,” the employer demanded a handover of duties, provisionally attached the employee’s deposit claims, and announced civil and criminal measures. The issue was whether these actions constituted an unfair dismissal.
The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the above measures in substance amounted to a dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission fully accepted the employee’s claim.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the employer, via KakaoTalk and similar messages, instructs the employee to hand over duties while notifying them to ‘find a place that suits your disposition,’ and subsequently carries out provisional attachment and sends a content-certified letter, (i) whether a dismissal exists, and (ii) whether a dismissal without written notice specifying the reason and timing of dismissal is lawful.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer used the expression “find a place that suits your disposition” on the premise that the employer no longer wished to continue working with the employee, that the employer immediately requested a handover of duties to another employee, and that, thereafter, the employer took a series of measures premised on the termination of the employment relationship, such as provisionally attaching the employee’s deposit claims and sending a content-certified letter announcing civil and criminal measures.
The Commission therefore held that the dismissal in this case involved, under social norms, an expression of intent to unilaterally terminate the employment contract.
In addition, the employer did not, at the time of dismissing the employee, give prior written notice specifying the reason and timing of the dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Although the employer later sent a separate notice, procedural defects cannot be cured by sending, after the fact, a written document that states the reasons for dismissal and a retroactively applied dismissal date for a dismissal that has already occurred. Taking into account the Supreme Court’s position that the reason for dismissal must be specified in writing in sufficient detail for the employee to concretely understand why they are being dismissed, the Commission concluded that the dismissal in this case suffered from a serious procedural defect and was therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if the employer uses expressions such as “find a place that suits your disposition” or “my mind will not change,” which reveal an intention not to continue the employment relationship, while demanding a handover of duties and subsequently announcing various legal measures, it must be borne in mind that this may, in substance, constitute a dismissal even in the absence of an explicit notice of dismissal.
Furthermore, for a dismissal to take effect, a written document specifying the reason and timing of the dismissal must be delivered in advance. A notice prepared only after the fact, in a merely formal manner, will not easily cure procedural defects. Employees should be aware of this and prepare responses such as filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the moment the employer, through emotional messages or KakaoTalk conversations, engages in conduct that, in effect, tells the employee to “quit,” such conduct itself may be evaluated as a dismissal, and the employer will then bear the burden of proving just cause and proper procedure. Where it is necessary to dismiss an employee, the employer should first prepare and deliver a written document that specifically sets out the reason and timing of the dismissal, and, only after thoroughly reviewing with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& whether the requirements of just cause under Article 23 and written notice under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act are satisfied, should the employer proceed.
This case, in relation to unfair dismissal, clearly illustrates that the Labor Relations Commission may recognize even informal expressions of intent, such as KakaoTalk messages, as a dismissal when viewed in light of the overall circumstances, and that it interprets strictly the obligation to provide written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal. Both employees and employers should keep in mind this stance of the Labor Relations Commission and the courts when formulating strategies for preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employer sent the employee messages stating, “Just hand over your work to OO and ◎◎ and find a place that suits your disposition,” and “From now on, my mind will never change.” These messages can only be regarded, under social norms, as an expression of intent to dismiss. In light of the fact that, after sending a message instructing the employee to hand over duties, the employer provisionally attached the employee’s deposit claims and sent a content-certified letter announcing forthcoming civil and criminal measures, the employer’s conduct after the notice of dismissal appears to have been carried out on the premise that the employment relationship had been terminated. Taking these points together, a dismissal exists.
B. Whether the dismissal is justified
In dismissing the employee, the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reason and timing of the dismissal, and although a separate notice was later sent, this cannot be regarded as curing the procedural defect. Accordingly, the dismissal is not justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employer sent the employee messages stating, “Just hand over your work to OO and ◎◎ and find a place that suits your disposition,” and “From now on, my mind will never change.” These messages can only be regarded, under social norms, as an expression of intent to dismiss. In light of the fact that, after sending a message instructing the employee to hand over duties, the employer provisionally attached the employee’s deposit claims and sent a content-certified letter announcing forthcoming civil and criminal measures, the employer’s conduct after the notice of dismissal appears to have been carried out on the premise that the employment relationship had been terminated. Taking these points together, a dismissal exists.
B. Whether the dismissal is justified
In dismissing the employee, the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reason and timing of the dismissal, and although a separate notice was later sent, this cannot be regarded as curing the procedural defect. Accordingly, the dismissal is not justified. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk message), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Fraudulent Receipt of Housing Support Allowance)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk message) can be found in the “List of Decisions Relating to Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk Message).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk message).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae21 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.04.01 · Case Result: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employer sent the employee messages stating, “Just hand over your work to OO and ◎◎ and find a place that suits your disposition,” and “From now on, my mind will never change.” These messages can only be regarded, under social norms, as an expression of intent to dismiss. Thereafter, the employer sent a message instructing the employee to hand over duties, then provisionally attached the employee’s deposit claims and sent a content-certified letter announcing forthcoming civil and criminal measures, and in light of these facts, etc., …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employer notified the employee via KakaoTalk and other messages, stating “Just hand over your work to OO and ◎◎ and find a place that suits your disposition,” and “From now on, my mind will never change,” the employer demanded a handover of duties, provisionally attached the employee’s deposit claims, and announced civil and criminal measures. The issue was whether these actions constituted an unfair dismissal.
The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the above measures in substance amounted to a dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission fully accepted the employee’s claim.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the employer, via KakaoTalk and similar messages, instructs the employee to hand over duties while notifying them to ‘find a place that suits your disposition,’ and subsequently carries out provisional attachment and sends a content-certified letter, (i) whether a dismissal exists, and (ii) whether a dismissal without written notice specifying the reason and timing of dismissal is lawful.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer used the expression “find a place that suits your disposition” on the premise that the employer no longer wished to continue working with the employee, that the employer immediately requested a handover of duties to another employee, and that, thereafter, the employer took a series of measures premised on the termination of the employment relationship, such as provisionally attaching the employee’s deposit claims and sending a content-certified letter announcing civil and criminal measures.
The Commission therefore held that the dismissal in this case involved, under social norms, an expression of intent to unilaterally terminate the employment contract.
In addition, the employer did not, at the time of dismissing the employee, give prior written notice specifying the reason and timing of the dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Although the employer later sent a separate notice, procedural defects cannot be cured by sending, after the fact, a written document that states the reasons for dismissal and a retroactively applied dismissal date for a dismissal that has already occurred. Taking into account the Supreme Court’s position that the reason for dismissal must be specified in writing in sufficient detail for the employee to concretely understand why they are being dismissed, the Commission concluded that the dismissal in this case suffered from a serious procedural defect and was therefore unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if the employer uses expressions such as “find a place that suits your disposition” or “my mind will not change,” which reveal an intention not to continue the employment relationship, while demanding a handover of duties and subsequently announcing various legal measures, it must be borne in mind that this may, in substance, constitute a dismissal even in the absence of an explicit notice of dismissal.
Furthermore, for a dismissal to take effect, a written document specifying the reason and timing of the dismissal must be delivered in advance. A notice prepared only after the fact, in a merely formal manner, will not easily cure procedural defects. Employees should be aware of this and prepare responses such as filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the moment the employer, through emotional messages or KakaoTalk conversations, engages in conduct that, in effect, tells the employee to “quit,” such conduct itself may be evaluated as a dismissal, and the employer will then bear the burden of proving just cause and proper procedure. Where it is necessary to dismiss an employee, the employer should first prepare and deliver a written document that specifically sets out the reason and timing of the dismissal, and, only after thoroughly reviewing with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& whether the requirements of just cause under Article 23 and written notice under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act are satisfied, should the employer proceed.
This case, in relation to unfair dismissal, clearly illustrates that the Labor Relations Commission may recognize even informal expressions of intent, such as KakaoTalk messages, as a dismissal when viewed in light of the overall circumstances, and that it interprets strictly the obligation to provide written notice of the reason and timing of dismissal. Both employees and employers should keep in mind this stance of the Labor Relations Commission and the courts when formulating strategies for preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employer sent the employee messages stating, “Just hand over your work to OO and ◎◎ and find a place that suits your disposition,” and “From now on, my mind will never change.” These messages can only be regarded, under social norms, as an expression of intent to dismiss. In light of the fact that, after sending a message instructing the employee to hand over duties, the employer provisionally attached the employee’s deposit claims and sent a content-certified letter announcing forthcoming civil and criminal measures, the employer’s conduct after the notice of dismissal appears to have been carried out on the premise that the employment relationship had been terminated. Taking these points together, a dismissal exists.
B. Whether the dismissal is justified
In dismissing the employee, the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reason and timing of the dismissal, and although a separate notice was later sent, this cannot be regarded as curing the procedural defect. Accordingly, the dismissal is not justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employer sent the employee messages stating, “Just hand over your work to OO and ◎◎ and find a place that suits your disposition,” and “From now on, my mind will never change.” These messages can only be regarded, under social norms, as an expression of intent to dismiss. In light of the fact that, after sending a message instructing the employee to hand over duties, the employer provisionally attached the employee’s deposit claims and sent a content-certified letter announcing forthcoming civil and criminal measures, the employer’s conduct after the notice of dismissal appears to have been carried out on the premise that the employment relationship had been terminated. Taking these points together, a dismissal exists.
B. Whether the dismissal is justified
In dismissing the employee, the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reason and timing of the dismissal, and although a separate notice was later sent, this cannot be regarded as curing the procedural defect. Accordingly, the dismissal is not justified. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk message), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Disciplinary Dismissal (Fraudulent Receipt of Housing Support Allowance)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to existence of dismissal (KakaoTalk message) can be found in the “List of Decisions Relating to Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk Message).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
