Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Withdrawal of Dismissal Followed by Order to Return to Work)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 50)
- Date2026/01/07 04:11
- Read 217
‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Withdrawal of Dismissal Followed by Order to Return to Work)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[basic case information]
- Case title: ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Withdrawal of Dismissal Followed by Order to Return to Work)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae4009 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome: ① The employer, with respect to the employee, on 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer notified the employee of dismissal by text message, then withdrew the dismissal and repeatedly ordered the employee to return to work. The Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on whether there remained any interest in relief. The employee filed an unfair dismissal relief application based on the initial dismissal notice, but the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission concentrated on examining the effect of the withdrawal of the dismissal and the orders to reinstate.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is: “Where the employer immediately withdraws a dismissal made by text message and repeatedly orders the employee to return to work, can the dismissal still be regarded as existing, and therefore, does the employee still retain the interest in relief required for an unfair dismissal relief application?”
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employer notified the employee of dismissal by text message on 23 September 2025, but on 25 September 2025 withdrew the dismissal and ordered the employee to return to work; that the employee initially agreed to the withdrawal of the dismissal and the employer confirmed this agreement; that thereafter the employee changed position, expressing an intention to return only on condition of a renegotiation of annual salary and in fact did not report to work; and that despite this, the employer repeatedly ordered the employee to return to work on 26 and 27 September and again on 2 October, and even paid wages for the period from 19 to 25 September.
In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that the effect of the dismissal had already been withdrawn by the employer and no longer existed.
Since the dismissal in this case was ultimately extinguished by its withdrawal, the Commission held that the unfair dismissal relief application filed with the Labor Relations Commission lacked any substantive need to order restoration of the employee’s status, that is, there was no remaining interest in relief.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission found, first, that the employer had expressly withdrawn the dismissal and repeatedly ordered the employee to return to work; second, that the employee had once agreed to the withdrawal of the dismissal and discussions were conducted on the premise that the employment relationship continued; and third, that, in view of the payment of wages and the circumstances of the orders to return to work after the withdrawal of the dismissal, the employment relationship had in substance been restored. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal no longer existed. This legal reasoning is in line with the Supreme Court’s position that where an employer cancels or withdraws a dismissal and reinstates the employee, the employee has already achieved the purpose of relief and there is no need to maintain the unfair dismissal relief procedure, so the interest in relief is extinguished.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee is contesting an unfair dismissal and, in the course of the dispute, the employer withdraws the dismissal and issues an order to reinstate or return to work, the employee should be aware that, as a rule, accepting this may extinguish the interest in relief through the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal procedures. Even where the employee accepts the withdrawal of the dismissal but seeks to renegotiate conditions such as wages or annual salary, if the employee refuses to report to work and insists only on conditional return, the dispute may instead shift into an issue of unauthorized absence or refusal to provide labor. Accordingly, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to formulate an appropriate strategy.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where an unfair dismissal dispute is anticipated, it is important to remember that, rather than proceeding to a substantive dispute over the just cause for dismissal, there is an option to promptly withdraw the dismissal and order the employee to return to work in order to resolve the dispute at an early stage. However, even if the intention to withdraw the dismissal is communicated by text message, email, or similar means, it should be clearly recorded, and wages should be paid and orders to return to work should be issued consistently, with documentation maintained so that the employer’s intention to maintain the employment relationship can be objectively proven.
To prevail in this type of case, it is crucial to secure sufficient objective evidence as to how the employment relationship was actually operated after the withdrawal of the dismissal, and to respond to the Labor Relations Commission proceedings with an accurate understanding of the legal doctrine on interest in relief and recent trends in case law.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The employer notified the employee of dismissal by text message on 23 September 2025, but on 25 September 2025 withdrew the dismissal and ordered the employee to return to work; ② the employee agreed to the withdrawal of the dismissal and the employer confirmed this, but the employee then changed position and stated that he or she would agree to the withdrawal of the dismissal only on condition of a renegotiation of annual salary, and did not report to work; ③ the employer again issued orders to return to work on 26 and 27 September 2025, and on 2 October 2025 paid the employee wages for the period from 19 to 25 September and again ordered the employee to return to work. In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the dismissal had been withdrawn and no longer existed, and therefore the relief application lacked any interest in relief.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The employer notified the employee of dismissal by text message on 23 September 2025, but on 25 September 2025 withdrew the dismissal and ordered the employee to return to work; ② the employee agreed to the withdrawal of the dismissal and the employer confirmed this, but the employee then changed position and stated that he or she would agree to the withdrawal of the dismissal only on condition of a renegotiation of annual salary, and did not report to work; ③ the employer again issued orders to return to work on 26 and 27 September 2025, and on 2 October 2025 paid the employee wages for the period from 19 to 25 September and again ordered the employee to return to work. In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the dismissal had been withdrawn and no longer existed, and therefore the relief application lacked any interest in relief. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Probationary Dismissal (3-Month Work Evaluation Period)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Standing to Sue (Fewer than 5 Employees · Adjacent Corporations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Existence of Dismissal (One-Day Daily Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Extinction of interest in relief (withdrawal of dismissal followed by order to return to work), 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, “‘Standing to Sue (Fewer than 5 Employees · Adjacent Corporations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to extinction of interest in relief (withdrawal of dismissal followed by order to return to work) can be viewed together in the “Extinction of Interest in Relief (Withdrawal of Dismissal Followed by Order to Return to Work) Related Decisions” list.
[basic case information]
- Case title: ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Withdrawal of Dismissal Followed by Order to Return to Work)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae4009 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome: ① The employer, with respect to the employee, on 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employer notified the employee of dismissal by text message, then withdrew the dismissal and repeatedly ordered the employee to return to work. The Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on whether there remained any interest in relief. The employee filed an unfair dismissal relief application based on the initial dismissal notice, but the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission concentrated on examining the effect of the withdrawal of the dismissal and the orders to reinstate.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is: “Where the employer immediately withdraws a dismissal made by text message and repeatedly orders the employee to return to work, can the dismissal still be regarded as existing, and therefore, does the employee still retain the interest in relief required for an unfair dismissal relief application?”
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employer notified the employee of dismissal by text message on 23 September 2025, but on 25 September 2025 withdrew the dismissal and ordered the employee to return to work; that the employee initially agreed to the withdrawal of the dismissal and the employer confirmed this agreement; that thereafter the employee changed position, expressing an intention to return only on condition of a renegotiation of annual salary and in fact did not report to work; and that despite this, the employer repeatedly ordered the employee to return to work on 26 and 27 September and again on 2 October, and even paid wages for the period from 19 to 25 September.
In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that the effect of the dismissal had already been withdrawn by the employer and no longer existed.
Since the dismissal in this case was ultimately extinguished by its withdrawal, the Commission held that the unfair dismissal relief application filed with the Labor Relations Commission lacked any substantive need to order restoration of the employee’s status, that is, there was no remaining interest in relief.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission found, first, that the employer had expressly withdrawn the dismissal and repeatedly ordered the employee to return to work; second, that the employee had once agreed to the withdrawal of the dismissal and discussions were conducted on the premise that the employment relationship continued; and third, that, in view of the payment of wages and the circumstances of the orders to return to work after the withdrawal of the dismissal, the employment relationship had in substance been restored. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal no longer existed. This legal reasoning is in line with the Supreme Court’s position that where an employer cancels or withdraws a dismissal and reinstates the employee, the employee has already achieved the purpose of relief and there is no need to maintain the unfair dismissal relief procedure, so the interest in relief is extinguished.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee is contesting an unfair dismissal and, in the course of the dispute, the employer withdraws the dismissal and issues an order to reinstate or return to work, the employee should be aware that, as a rule, accepting this may extinguish the interest in relief through the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal procedures. Even where the employee accepts the withdrawal of the dismissal but seeks to renegotiate conditions such as wages or annual salary, if the employee refuses to report to work and insists only on conditional return, the dispute may instead shift into an issue of unauthorized absence or refusal to provide labor. Accordingly, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to formulate an appropriate strategy.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where an unfair dismissal dispute is anticipated, it is important to remember that, rather than proceeding to a substantive dispute over the just cause for dismissal, there is an option to promptly withdraw the dismissal and order the employee to return to work in order to resolve the dispute at an early stage. However, even if the intention to withdraw the dismissal is communicated by text message, email, or similar means, it should be clearly recorded, and wages should be paid and orders to return to work should be issued consistently, with documentation maintained so that the employer’s intention to maintain the employment relationship can be objectively proven.
To prevail in this type of case, it is crucial to secure sufficient objective evidence as to how the employment relationship was actually operated after the withdrawal of the dismissal, and to respond to the Labor Relations Commission proceedings with an accurate understanding of the legal doctrine on interest in relief and recent trends in case law.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The employer notified the employee of dismissal by text message on 23 September 2025, but on 25 September 2025 withdrew the dismissal and ordered the employee to return to work; ② the employee agreed to the withdrawal of the dismissal and the employer confirmed this, but the employee then changed position and stated that he or she would agree to the withdrawal of the dismissal only on condition of a renegotiation of annual salary, and did not report to work; ③ the employer again issued orders to return to work on 26 and 27 September 2025, and on 2 October 2025 paid the employee wages for the period from 19 to 25 September and again ordered the employee to return to work. In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the dismissal had been withdrawn and no longer existed, and therefore the relief application lacked any interest in relief.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The employer notified the employee of dismissal by text message on 23 September 2025, but on 25 September 2025 withdrew the dismissal and ordered the employee to return to work; ② the employee agreed to the withdrawal of the dismissal and the employer confirmed this, but the employee then changed position and stated that he or she would agree to the withdrawal of the dismissal only on condition of a renegotiation of annual salary, and did not report to work; ③ the employer again issued orders to return to work on 26 and 27 September 2025, and on 2 October 2025 paid the employee wages for the period from 19 to 25 September and again ordered the employee to return to work. In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the dismissal had been withdrawn and no longer existed, and therefore the relief application lacked any interest in relief. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Probationary Dismissal (3-Month Work Evaluation Period)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Standing to Sue (Fewer than 5 Employees · Adjacent Corporations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Existence of Dismissal (One-Day Daily Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Extinction of interest in relief (withdrawal of dismissal followed by order to return to work), 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, “‘Standing to Sue (Fewer than 5 Employees · Adjacent Corporations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to extinction of interest in relief (withdrawal of dismissal followed by order to return to work) can be viewed together in the “Extinction of Interest in Relief (Withdrawal of Dismissal Followed by Order to Return to Work) Related Decisions” list.
