Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Relief Interest and Written Notice (KakaoTalk Dismissal Notice)” (Unfair Dismissal 445)
- Date2026/05/11 04:13
- Read 108
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issues of “relief interest and written notice (KakaoTalk dismissal notice).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae27 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.26 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of relief interest: The employee sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement to the original position, and the employer’s request for the employee to return to work was not accompanied by payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period, etc. Accordingly, relief interest was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working on a schedule basis, in a manner close to daily employment, effectively received notice of termination via a KakaoTalk message from the on-site manager and subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission. The core issues before the Commission were whether the employee’s status was that of a simple daily worker or a fixed-term employee, whether a dismissal existed, and, if unfair dismissal were to be found, whether the Commission could order monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position.
In this case, the employee did not seek reinstatement but requested payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period. The Commission recognized relief interest despite the employer’s subsequent request that the employee return to work, and found unfair dismissal and ordered monetary compensation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were whether: (i) notification in the form of a KakaoTalk message constitutes an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss; (ii) relief interest exists even where the employee seeks only monetary compensation instead of reinstatement; and (iii) an employee working on a schedule basis can be regarded as a fixed-term employee rather than a simple daily worker.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case held that the employee should be viewed as a fixed-term employee rather than a simple daily worker, in light of: the fact that the recruitment notice posted by the employer specified the employment period up to a particular date (31 March 2026); the fact that a four‑day‑per‑week schedule and notification of the following week’s schedule were repeatedly provided; and that, taken together, this working pattern was closer to a fixed-term employment contract premised on continuous work over a certain period, rather than a one‑off or temporary engagement.
The panel further found that the on-site manager’s KakaoTalk message to the effect that the employee should “no longer come to work” could be evaluated as an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss, whereas there was no evidence that the employer had provided written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal. It also held that the employer’s subsequent request for the employee to return to work was not accompanied by payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period and therefore could not be regarded as a measure that substantially restored the employee’s loss. Given that the employee from the outset sought payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period rather than reinstatement, and that sufficient relief could be provided through a monetary compensation order, the Commission recognized unfair dismissal and ordered the employer to pay wages corresponding to the dismissal period.
Furthermore, the Commission held that even where an employee does not seek reinstatement and requests only monetary compensation, it is consistent with the purpose of the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act for the Labor Relations Commission to confirm the unfair dismissal and order payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period. It also held that the mere fact that the employer requested the employee’s return to work does not, by itself, extinguish relief interest.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that even if you receive a notice such as “do not come in anymore” by electronic means such as text message or KakaoTalk, you may still challenge the dismissal as unfair if the employer has not provided written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal.
In addition, even where the work is based on schedules or advertised as short-term, if the recruitment notice and actual work pattern show that continuous work over a certain period was contemplated, you may be recognized as a fixed-term employee. In such cases, if you are unfairly dismissed, you may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for relief and, even if reinstatement is difficult, obtain an order for monetary compensation in the amount of wages corresponding to the dismissal period.
In particular, even if you do not wish to be reinstated, if you clearly seek monetary compensation from the application stage, the Labor Relations Commission can determine whether the dismissal was unfair and order payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period. Accordingly, immediately after dismissal, you should consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to design an appropriate relief strategy.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, you must be acutely aware that even where an on-site manager or store manager issues a notice that effectively amounts to dismissal via KakaoTalk or similar means, this may legally be evaluated as an expression of the employer’s own intent to dismiss.
If dismissal is necessary, you must provide in advance a written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal, and fully comply with the procedures and justifications applicable to the relevant type of dismissal (disciplinary dismissal, redundancy, etc.). Simply “removing the employee from the schedule” or “suspending attendance” as an indirect method carries a very high risk of being found to constitute unfair dismissal.
Moreover, not all scheduled workers can be treated as daily workers. Where the employment period is specified in the recruitment notice or where a de facto fixed-term employment relationship has been formed through repeated scheduling, the restrictions on dismissal under the Act on the Protection, Etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees and the Labor Standards Act will apply as they are. Employers should therefore review and refine their HR and employment contract wording on this basis.
Further, where unfair dismissal has been found and the employee seeks monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, a monetary compensation order by the Labor Relations Commission functions as a remedial order in lieu of an order for reinstatement. Failure to comply may give rise to enforcement fines and even criminal liability. Employers should therefore promptly establish an implementation plan following the decision.
This decision of the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission provides important guidance on unfair dismissal, monetary compensation orders, and the scope of recognition of relief interest. To prevent or respond to similar cases, we recommend that you regularly review your HR and labor risk management with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of relief interest
The employee sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement, and the employer’s request for the employee to return to work was not accompanied by payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period, etc. Accordingly, relief interest was recognized.
B. Whether the employee was a fixed-term employee
Given that the recruitment notice specified the employment period as running until 31 March 2026, and that the employee worked on a four‑day‑per‑week schedule with notification of the following week’s schedule, it was appropriate to regard the employee as a fixed-term employee rather than a simple daily worker.
C. Existence and justification of dismissal
The KakaoTalk notice from the on-site manager could be viewed as an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss, whereas there was no evidence that the employer had lawfully provided written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Since the employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, the employer was ordered to pay wages corresponding to the dismissal period.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of relief interest
The employee sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement, and the employer’s request for the employee to return to work was not accompanied by payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period, etc. Accordingly, relief interest was recognized.
B. Whether the employee was a fixed-term employee
Given that the recruitment notice specified the employment period as running until 31 March 2026, and that the employee worked on a four‑day‑per‑week schedule with notification of the following week’s schedule, it was appropriate to regard the employee as a fixed-term employee rather than a simple daily worker.
C. Existence and justification of dismissal
The KakaoTalk notice from the on-site manager could be viewed as an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss, whereas there was no evidence that the employer had lawfully provided written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Since the employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, the employer was ordered to pay wages corresponding to the dismissal period. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (Repeated Renewal of Fixed-Term Contracts)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Existence of Dismissal (‘I will quit’ Oral Statement)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, relief interest and written notice (KakaoTalk dismissal notice), others, refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Existence of Dismissal (‘I will quit’ Oral Statement),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to relief interest and written notice (KakaoTalk dismissal notice) can be viewed together in the “Relief Interest and Written Notice (KakaoTalk Dismissal Notice) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issues of “relief interest and written notice (KakaoTalk dismissal notice).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae27 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.26 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of relief interest: The employee sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement to the original position, and the employer’s request for the employee to return to work was not accompanied by payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period, etc. Accordingly, relief interest was recognized.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee working on a schedule basis, in a manner close to daily employment, effectively received notice of termination via a KakaoTalk message from the on-site manager and subsequently filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission. The core issues before the Commission were whether the employee’s status was that of a simple daily worker or a fixed-term employee, whether a dismissal existed, and, if unfair dismissal were to be found, whether the Commission could order monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position.
In this case, the employee did not seek reinstatement but requested payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period. The Commission recognized relief interest despite the employer’s subsequent request that the employee return to work, and found unfair dismissal and ordered monetary compensation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were whether: (i) notification in the form of a KakaoTalk message constitutes an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss; (ii) relief interest exists even where the employee seeks only monetary compensation instead of reinstatement; and (iii) an employee working on a schedule basis can be regarded as a fixed-term employee rather than a simple daily worker.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case held that the employee should be viewed as a fixed-term employee rather than a simple daily worker, in light of: the fact that the recruitment notice posted by the employer specified the employment period up to a particular date (31 March 2026); the fact that a four‑day‑per‑week schedule and notification of the following week’s schedule were repeatedly provided; and that, taken together, this working pattern was closer to a fixed-term employment contract premised on continuous work over a certain period, rather than a one‑off or temporary engagement.
The panel further found that the on-site manager’s KakaoTalk message to the effect that the employee should “no longer come to work” could be evaluated as an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss, whereas there was no evidence that the employer had provided written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal. It also held that the employer’s subsequent request for the employee to return to work was not accompanied by payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period and therefore could not be regarded as a measure that substantially restored the employee’s loss. Given that the employee from the outset sought payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period rather than reinstatement, and that sufficient relief could be provided through a monetary compensation order, the Commission recognized unfair dismissal and ordered the employer to pay wages corresponding to the dismissal period.
Furthermore, the Commission held that even where an employee does not seek reinstatement and requests only monetary compensation, it is consistent with the purpose of the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act for the Labor Relations Commission to confirm the unfair dismissal and order payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period. It also held that the mere fact that the employer requested the employee’s return to work does not, by itself, extinguish relief interest.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that even if you receive a notice such as “do not come in anymore” by electronic means such as text message or KakaoTalk, you may still challenge the dismissal as unfair if the employer has not provided written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal.
In addition, even where the work is based on schedules or advertised as short-term, if the recruitment notice and actual work pattern show that continuous work over a certain period was contemplated, you may be recognized as a fixed-term employee. In such cases, if you are unfairly dismissed, you may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for relief and, even if reinstatement is difficult, obtain an order for monetary compensation in the amount of wages corresponding to the dismissal period.
In particular, even if you do not wish to be reinstated, if you clearly seek monetary compensation from the application stage, the Labor Relations Commission can determine whether the dismissal was unfair and order payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period. Accordingly, immediately after dismissal, you should consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to design an appropriate relief strategy.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, you must be acutely aware that even where an on-site manager or store manager issues a notice that effectively amounts to dismissal via KakaoTalk or similar means, this may legally be evaluated as an expression of the employer’s own intent to dismiss.
If dismissal is necessary, you must provide in advance a written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal, and fully comply with the procedures and justifications applicable to the relevant type of dismissal (disciplinary dismissal, redundancy, etc.). Simply “removing the employee from the schedule” or “suspending attendance” as an indirect method carries a very high risk of being found to constitute unfair dismissal.
Moreover, not all scheduled workers can be treated as daily workers. Where the employment period is specified in the recruitment notice or where a de facto fixed-term employment relationship has been formed through repeated scheduling, the restrictions on dismissal under the Act on the Protection, Etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees and the Labor Standards Act will apply as they are. Employers should therefore review and refine their HR and employment contract wording on this basis.
Further, where unfair dismissal has been found and the employee seeks monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, a monetary compensation order by the Labor Relations Commission functions as a remedial order in lieu of an order for reinstatement. Failure to comply may give rise to enforcement fines and even criminal liability. Employers should therefore promptly establish an implementation plan following the decision.
This decision of the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission provides important guidance on unfair dismissal, monetary compensation orders, and the scope of recognition of relief interest. To prevent or respond to similar cases, we recommend that you regularly review your HR and labor risk management with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of relief interest
The employee sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement, and the employer’s request for the employee to return to work was not accompanied by payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period, etc. Accordingly, relief interest was recognized.
B. Whether the employee was a fixed-term employee
Given that the recruitment notice specified the employment period as running until 31 March 2026, and that the employee worked on a four‑day‑per‑week schedule with notification of the following week’s schedule, it was appropriate to regard the employee as a fixed-term employee rather than a simple daily worker.
C. Existence and justification of dismissal
The KakaoTalk notice from the on-site manager could be viewed as an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss, whereas there was no evidence that the employer had lawfully provided written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Since the employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, the employer was ordered to pay wages corresponding to the dismissal period.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of relief interest
The employee sought monetary compensation rather than reinstatement, and the employer’s request for the employee to return to work was not accompanied by payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period, etc. Accordingly, relief interest was recognized.
B. Whether the employee was a fixed-term employee
Given that the recruitment notice specified the employment period as running until 31 March 2026, and that the employee worked on a four‑day‑per‑week schedule with notification of the following week’s schedule, it was appropriate to regard the employee as a fixed-term employee rather than a simple daily worker.
C. Existence and justification of dismissal
The KakaoTalk notice from the on-site manager could be viewed as an expression of the employer’s intent to dismiss, whereas there was no evidence that the employer had lawfully provided written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal. Accordingly, the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.
D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
Since the employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, the employer was ordered to pay wages corresponding to the dismissal period. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (Repeated Renewal of Fixed-Term Contracts)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Existence of Dismissal (‘I will quit’ Oral Statement)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, relief interest and written notice (KakaoTalk dismissal notice), others, refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Existence of Dismissal (‘I will quit’ Oral Statement),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to relief interest and written notice (KakaoTalk dismissal notice) can be viewed together in the “Relief Interest and Written Notice (KakaoTalk Dismissal Notice) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
