Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 464)
- Date2026/05/20 04:04
- Read 97
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “dismissal of application (non-appearance at hearing).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10164 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.23 · Case Type: Dismissal of Application
Key Issue Summary: The hearing in this case was held in 2026.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. However, the employee repeatedly failed to appear at the hearing, and the application was ultimately dismissed. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission applied the procedures set out in the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission and concluded that there was no longer any remedial interest, thereby closing the case.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to appear at the hearing twice in a row, may the Labor Relations Commission, pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, deem that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application and dismiss the application?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the hearing had already been postponed once due to the employee’s failure to appear, that the employee again failed to appear at the subsequently scheduled main hearing, and that Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides that, “where the applicant fails to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance at the hearing is returned on two or more occasions due to unknown address or unknown whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” it shall be deemed that there is no longer any remedial interest.
Accordingly, the panel held that, before examining the lawfulness or unfairness of the dismissal itself, it was appropriate to dismiss the application on the ground that there was no longer any remedial interest in the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Once an employee has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, attendance at the hearing is not a mere option but an essential requirement for maintaining the remedial procedure. If attendance is difficult due to unavoidable circumstances, the employee should examine whether the reason falls under a legitimate ground for postponement as prescribed in the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, and submit an application for postponement together with supporting documents no later than three days before the hearing (or by the hearing date in exceptional cases such as illness, death, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where the employee repeatedly fails to appear at the hearing, it is advisable to document the reasons and the course of proceedings so that procedural propriety can be demonstrated in any future dispute. Even if the employee is eliminated from the remedial procedure due to dismissal of the application, the possibility of a separate civil lawsuit may remain. Therefore, the employer should carefully preserve and organize all materials relating to the grounds and procedures of the dismissal at the time it was carried out.
In this type of case, the “existence of remedial interest” and “compliance with procedure” function as threshold requirements before the question of unfair dismissal is addressed. Both employees and employers must therefore accurately understand the attendance and postponement rules under the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission and respond accordingly.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A hearing in this case was held on 23 February 2026, but it was postponed due to the employee’s failure to appear. As the employee again failed to appear at the main hearing, the situation fell under Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which applies where the applicant fails to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance at the hearing is returned on two or more occasions due to unknown address or unknown whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application. Accordingly, it was deemed that there was no longer any remedial interest, and dismissal of the application was found to be appropriate.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A hearing in this case was held on 23 February 2026, but it was postponed due to the employee’s failure to appear. As the employee again failed to appear at the main hearing, the situation fell under Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which applies where the applicant fails to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance at the hearing is returned on two or more occasions due to unknown address or unknown whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application. Accordingly, it was deemed that there was no longer any remedial interest, and dismissal of the application was found to be appropriate. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: - Case Type: Dismissal of Application
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: - Case Type: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal of application (non-appearance at hearing), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Legitimate Expectation of Contract Renewal (Professional Football Coach)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to dismissal of application (non-appearance at hearing) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “dismissal of application (non-appearance at hearing).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10164 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.23 · Case Type: Dismissal of Application
Key Issue Summary: The hearing in this case was held in 2026.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. However, the employee repeatedly failed to appear at the hearing, and the application was ultimately dismissed. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission applied the procedures set out in the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission and concluded that there was no longer any remedial interest, thereby closing the case.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal fails to appear at the hearing twice in a row, may the Labor Relations Commission, pursuant to Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, deem that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application and dismiss the application?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the hearing had already been postponed once due to the employee’s failure to appear, that the employee again failed to appear at the subsequently scheduled main hearing, and that Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides that, “where the applicant fails to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance at the hearing is returned on two or more occasions due to unknown address or unknown whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application,” it shall be deemed that there is no longer any remedial interest.
Accordingly, the panel held that, before examining the lawfulness or unfairness of the dismissal itself, it was appropriate to dismiss the application on the ground that there was no longer any remedial interest in the employee’s application for remedy.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Once an employee has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, attendance at the hearing is not a mere option but an essential requirement for maintaining the remedial procedure. If attendance is difficult due to unavoidable circumstances, the employee should examine whether the reason falls under a legitimate ground for postponement as prescribed in the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, and submit an application for postponement together with supporting documents no later than three days before the hearing (or by the hearing date in exceptional cases such as illness, death, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where the employee repeatedly fails to appear at the hearing, it is advisable to document the reasons and the course of proceedings so that procedural propriety can be demonstrated in any future dispute. Even if the employee is eliminated from the remedial procedure due to dismissal of the application, the possibility of a separate civil lawsuit may remain. Therefore, the employer should carefully preserve and organize all materials relating to the grounds and procedures of the dismissal at the time it was carried out.
In this type of case, the “existence of remedial interest” and “compliance with procedure” function as threshold requirements before the question of unfair dismissal is addressed. Both employees and employers must therefore accurately understand the attendance and postponement rules under the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission and respond accordingly.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A hearing in this case was held on 23 February 2026, but it was postponed due to the employee’s failure to appear. As the employee again failed to appear at the main hearing, the situation fell under Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which applies where the applicant fails to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance at the hearing is returned on two or more occasions due to unknown address or unknown whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application. Accordingly, it was deemed that there was no longer any remedial interest, and dismissal of the application was found to be appropriate.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A hearing in this case was held on 23 February 2026, but it was postponed due to the employee’s failure to appear. As the employee again failed to appear at the main hearing, the situation fell under Article 60(1)7 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which applies where the applicant fails to appear at the hearing on two or more occasions, or where the notice of appearance at the hearing is returned on two or more occasions due to unknown address or unknown whereabouts, or where it is otherwise recognized that the applicant has abandoned the intention to pursue the application. Accordingly, it was deemed that there was no longer any remedial interest, and dismissal of the application was found to be appropriate. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: - Case Type: Dismissal of Application
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: - Case Type: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, dismissal of application (non-appearance at hearing), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Legitimate Expectation of Contract Renewal (Professional Football Coach)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to dismissal of application (non-appearance at hearing) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
