[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “non‑existence of grounds for dismissal (one day of unauthorised absence).” Decision date: 2026-07-02 · Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae122 Key issue summary: A. Legitimacy of the dismissal A “notice of termination of employment contract” issued to the employee pursuant to a written confirmation stating that the employment contract would be terminated in the event of poor attendance constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, regardless of its title or form, because it unilaterally terminates the employment relationship against the employee’s will. 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case was contested before the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, which found the employer’s dismissal measure invalid and granted the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, where the key issues were whether a measure styled as a “notice of termination of employment contract” in form nonetheless constitutes an unfair dismissal in substance, and how to determine the scope of the monetary compensation order. Ⅰ. Case Overview At the employer’s request, the employee had signed a written confirmation to the effect that “if attendance is poor, the employment contract will be terminated,” and continued working under that condition. After the employee was absent without permission for one day, the employer issued a notice of termination of the employment contract based on the written confirmation. The employee, challenging the unfairness of the dismissal, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal and for a monetary compensation order. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are whether a notice of termination of the employment contract, based on a written confirmation executed after one day of unauthorised absence, constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, and whether its legitimacy can be recognised in terms of the grounds for dismissal and the disciplinary procedure. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that the employer’s “notice of termination of employment contract” was a measure that unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will, regardless of its title or form; that the direct ground for dismissal was no more than one day of unauthorised absence, the employee was providing an explanation for that absence, and one day of unauthorised absence was not stipulated as a ground for dismissal in the employment contract; and that there was no evidence at all that the employer had followed the disciplinary procedures set out in the work rules. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case lacked substantive and procedural legitimacy and was therefore unfair. Furthermore, at the employee’s request, the Commission granted the application for a monetary compensation order, but, taking into account that the employer had already paid the full amount of wages for the month in which the dismissal date fell, it determined the amount of compensation as the wage equivalent minus the amount corresponding to that period. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even if an employee has signed a written confirmation stating that they “agree to termination of the employment contract in the event of poor attendance,” this does not, by itself, allow the employer to dismiss the employee at will. For a dismissal to be legitimate, there must be a culpable reason of such gravity that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained, and, at the same time, the employer must comply with the disciplinary procedures stipulated in the work rules and collective agreements, as well as the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective) Even if a company has obtained attendance confirmations or written undertakings from employees, it must design its HR and labor management systems on the premise that any termination of the employment contract based on such documents will ultimately be evaluated as a “dismissal” and thus be subject to the restrictions under Articles 23 and 27 of the Labor Standards Act. When carrying out disciplinary dismissal or ordinary dismissal, the company should carefully verify whether the grounds for dismissal fall within the dismissal grounds specified in the work rules and the employment contract, whether they are serious enough that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be continued, and whether all procedural requirements—such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing an opportunity for explanation, and giving written notice—have been fully satisfied. This precedent clearly illustrates that the Labor Relations Commission determines whether a dismissal has occurred based on substance rather than the title or form of the measure, and that it strictly requires both substantive and procedural legitimacy. To prevent similar disputes, companies should systematically manage attendance, refine their disciplinary regulations, and operate warning, training, and disciplinary committee procedures in a structured manner at stages prior to dismissal. 2. Matters Decided A. Case overview and procedural history This is a case in which the employer’s dismissal was found to be unfair due to lack of substantive and procedural legitimacy, and the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order was granted. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s findings A. Legitimacy of the dismissal The “notice of termination of employment contract” issued to the employee pursuant to a written confirmation stating that the employment contract would be terminated in the event of poor attendance constitutes a dismissal, regardless of its title or form, because it unilaterally terminates the employment relationship against the employee’s will. The direct ground for dismissal was merely one day of unauthorised absence, for which the employee was providing an explanation, and one day of unauthorised absence was not a ground for dismissal under the employment contract. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the employee bore such responsibility that, under social norms, the employment relationship could not be maintained. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the employer followed the disciplinary procedures stipulated in the work rules. Therefore, the dismissal in question cannot be recognised as substantively or procedurally legitimate. B. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order At the employee’s request, the Commission accepted the application for a monetary compensation order. However, in light of the fact that the employer had already paid the full amount of wages for the month in which the dismissal date fell, the Commission set the compensation amount as the wage equivalent minus the amount corresponding to that period. [See More Related Precedents] - Unfair dismissal precedent concerning “Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employee)” - Unfair dismissal precedent concerning “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management and Supervision)” - Unfair dismissal precedent concerning “Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, non‑existence of grounds for dismissal (one day of unauthorised absence), unauthorised absence, disciplinary dismissal, 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 Precedents” series. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Standing to Sue (Reconstruction Apartment Residents’ Representative Council)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of precedents concerning non‑existence of grounds for dismissal (one day of unauthorised absence) can be viewed in the “List of Precedents Concerning Non‑Existence of Grounds for Dismissal (One Day of Unauthorised Absence).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article