Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Defect in Written Notice (Reinstatement Order Followed by Monetary Compensation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 436)
- Date2026/05/07 04:13
- Read 122
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defect in written notice (reinstatement order followed by monetary compensation).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 103 ○ ○ ○
Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.03.30 · Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of a benefit in seeking relief
The employee wished to receive monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and although the employer issued an order for reinstatement, the employer did not pay the employee an amount at least equivalent to the wages for the period of dismissal. Accordingly, it was held that the employee’s benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order had not been extinguished.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer notified the employee of dismissal and later belatedly ordered reinstatement to the original position. However, because the employer did not pay an amount at least equivalent to the wages for the period of dismissal, the matter was again disputed before the Labor Relations Commission. The employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, and the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on (i) whether a benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order existed, (ii) the lawfulness of the dismissal, and (iii) the method of calculating the monetary compensation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether a dismissal is lawful where the employer has not notified the employee in writing of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, and whether the employee still has a benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order where, even after an order for reinstatement, the employer has not paid an amount at least equivalent to the wages for the period of dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, that even when ordering reinstatement after the dismissal the employer did not pay an amount at least equivalent to the wages the employee would have received had the employee worked normally during the dismissal period, and that the employee clearly wished to receive monetary compensation instead of reinstatement.
The panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair due to a procedural defect under the Labor Standards Act, namely the failure to satisfy the requirement of written notice. Furthermore, although the employer issued an order for reinstatement, because the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period was not properly paid, the employee’s benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order was not extinguished. The panel also found it appropriate, in calculating the amount of the monetary compensation order, to deduct the portion of wages that the employer had paid during the dismissal period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees must check whether, upon being notified of dismissal, they received a written document specifying the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, and whether, even if there is a subsequent reinstatement order, the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period has been properly paid. Even if you do not wish to be reinstated and instead seek monetary compensation, it is possible to apply to the Labor Relations Commission for relief and obtain both a confirmation of unfair dismissal and an order for monetary compensation. It is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to develop an appropriate strategy.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
Regardless of whether the dismissal is disciplinary or for redundancy, the company must strictly comply with the procedure of notifying all dismissals in writing, specifying the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. In addition, where there is a possibility of an unfair dismissal finding or a dispute is already underway and the company orders reinstatement, if the company does not clearly determine how to calculate and pay the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period (including whether to deduct interim earnings, and the timing of payment), additional legal risks such as monetary compensation orders and enforcement penalties may arise.
This decision clarifies that the core purpose of the unfair dismissal relief system is not limited to mere restoration of employment status, but also includes substantive relief for the amount equivalent to wages during the dismissal period. Labor Law Firm Law& recommends that companies establish a personnel and labor management system that preemptively reviews risks at each stage—written notice of dismissal, reinstatement orders, and monetary compensation orders—to prevent disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of a benefit in seeking relief
The employee wished to receive monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and although the employer issued an order for reinstatement, the employer did not pay an amount at least equivalent to the wages for the period of dismissal. Accordingly, it was held that the employee’s benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order had not been extinguished.
B. Lawfulness of the dismissal
Because the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order
Because the employee wished to receive monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this request was accepted. However, it was held appropriate to calculate the amount of the monetary compensation order by taking into account and deducting the portion of wages that the employee received from the employer during the dismissal period.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Existence of a benefit in seeking relief
The employee wished to receive monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and although the employer issued an order for reinstatement, the employer did not pay an amount at least equivalent to the wages for the period of dismissal. Accordingly, it was held that the employee’s benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order had not been extinguished.
B. Lawfulness of the dismissal
Because the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order
Because the employee wished to receive monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this request was accepted. However, it was held appropriate to calculate the amount of the monetary compensation order by taking into account and deducting the portion of wages that the employee received from the employer during the dismissal period. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Probationary Dismissal (Burn Injury Accident During Skin Treatment)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Resignation Not Reflecting True Intent (Handwritten Resignation by Employee Recommended to Resign)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (reinstatement order followed by monetary compensation), 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 Decision Relating to Probationary Dismissal (Burn Injury Accident During Skin Treatment),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to defect in written notice (reinstatement order followed by monetary compensation) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Defect in Written Notice (Reinstatement Order Followed by Monetary Compensation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defect in written notice (reinstatement order followed by monetary compensation).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 103 ○ ○ ○
Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.03.30 · Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of a benefit in seeking relief
The employee wished to receive monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and although the employer issued an order for reinstatement, the employer did not pay the employee an amount at least equivalent to the wages for the period of dismissal. Accordingly, it was held that the employee’s benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order had not been extinguished.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer notified the employee of dismissal and later belatedly ordered reinstatement to the original position. However, because the employer did not pay an amount at least equivalent to the wages for the period of dismissal, the matter was again disputed before the Labor Relations Commission. The employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, and the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on (i) whether a benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order existed, (ii) the lawfulness of the dismissal, and (iii) the method of calculating the monetary compensation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether a dismissal is lawful where the employer has not notified the employee in writing of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, and whether the employee still has a benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order where, even after an order for reinstatement, the employer has not paid an amount at least equivalent to the wages for the period of dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, that even when ordering reinstatement after the dismissal the employer did not pay an amount at least equivalent to the wages the employee would have received had the employee worked normally during the dismissal period, and that the employee clearly wished to receive monetary compensation instead of reinstatement.
The panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair due to a procedural defect under the Labor Standards Act, namely the failure to satisfy the requirement of written notice. Furthermore, although the employer issued an order for reinstatement, because the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period was not properly paid, the employee’s benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order was not extinguished. The panel also found it appropriate, in calculating the amount of the monetary compensation order, to deduct the portion of wages that the employer had paid during the dismissal period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees must check whether, upon being notified of dismissal, they received a written document specifying the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, and whether, even if there is a subsequent reinstatement order, the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period has been properly paid. Even if you do not wish to be reinstated and instead seek monetary compensation, it is possible to apply to the Labor Relations Commission for relief and obtain both a confirmation of unfair dismissal and an order for monetary compensation. It is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to develop an appropriate strategy.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
Regardless of whether the dismissal is disciplinary or for redundancy, the company must strictly comply with the procedure of notifying all dismissals in writing, specifying the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. In addition, where there is a possibility of an unfair dismissal finding or a dispute is already underway and the company orders reinstatement, if the company does not clearly determine how to calculate and pay the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period (including whether to deduct interim earnings, and the timing of payment), additional legal risks such as monetary compensation orders and enforcement penalties may arise.
This decision clarifies that the core purpose of the unfair dismissal relief system is not limited to mere restoration of employment status, but also includes substantive relief for the amount equivalent to wages during the dismissal period. Labor Law Firm Law& recommends that companies establish a personnel and labor management system that preemptively reviews risks at each stage—written notice of dismissal, reinstatement orders, and monetary compensation orders—to prevent disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of a benefit in seeking relief
The employee wished to receive monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and although the employer issued an order for reinstatement, the employer did not pay an amount at least equivalent to the wages for the period of dismissal. Accordingly, it was held that the employee’s benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order had not been extinguished.
B. Lawfulness of the dismissal
Because the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order
Because the employee wished to receive monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this request was accepted. However, it was held appropriate to calculate the amount of the monetary compensation order by taking into account and deducting the portion of wages that the employee received from the employer during the dismissal period.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Existence of a benefit in seeking relief
The employee wished to receive monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and although the employer issued an order for reinstatement, the employer did not pay an amount at least equivalent to the wages for the period of dismissal. Accordingly, it was held that the employee’s benefit in seeking a monetary compensation order had not been extinguished.
B. Lawfulness of the dismissal
Because the employer did not notify the employee in writing of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order
Because the employee wished to receive monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this request was accepted. However, it was held appropriate to calculate the amount of the monetary compensation order by taking into account and deducting the portion of wages that the employee received from the employer during the dismissal period. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Probationary Dismissal (Burn Injury Accident During Skin Treatment)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Resignation Not Reflecting True Intent (Handwritten Resignation by Employee Recommended to Resign)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (reinstatement order followed by monetary compensation), 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 Decision Relating to Probationary Dismissal (Burn Injury Accident During Skin Treatment),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to defect in written notice (reinstatement order followed by monetary compensation) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Defect in Written Notice (Reinstatement Order Followed by Monetary Compensation).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
