This case concerns a precedent in which the issue of “implied dismissal (laptop retrieval · loss of four major social insurances)” was decided with the original decision being upheld. [Case Information] This case is a Central Labor Relations Commission re-examination decision (2026BuHae91) on an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, where the worker claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission and the employer subsequently cancelled the dismissal and paid wages. Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae91 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re-examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-30 · Result: Original decision upheld Key issue summary: a. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and thereafter the employer cancelled the dismissal and paid wages. The Central Labor Relations Commission’s re-examination decision (2026BuHae91) addressed this situation. The Commission recognized an implied unfair dismissal based on circumstances such as the IT manager’s request to retrieve the worker’s laptop, the processing of loss of coverage under the four major social insurances, the request for the worker’s IRP (Individual Retirement Pension) account, and the payment of calculated unused annual leave allowance. At the same time, it separately examined whether any remedial interest remained after the dismissal was cancelled and wages were paid. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are: “(i) whether, in the absence of an explicit notice of dismissal, the employer’s series of actions constitutes an implied dismissal, and (ii) whether remedial interest in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal still exists where the employer subsequently cancels the dismissal and pays wages for the dismissal period.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel found that the employer had impliedly dismissed the worker as of 11 July 2025, in light of the following: the IT manager requested retrieval of the laptop, stating that he had received an email from HR regarding the worker’s resignation; the worker’s coverage under the four major social insurances was processed as lost; the worker’s IRP account information was requested; and the worker’s unused annual leave allowance was calculated and paid as wages. Separately, the panel took into account that the employer later cancelled the dismissal and paid wages for the dismissal period and for November 2025, and that the Supreme Court has held that “where an employer cancels or withdraws a dismissal and reinstates the worker, the purpose of the application for remedy has been achieved, so there is no longer any need to maintain the remedial procedure and the remedial interest is extinguished” (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Du7186, 2000Du7988, etc.). As a result, while the panel held that the dismissal in this case constituted an implied unfair dismissal, it also ruled that, since the dismissal had been cancelled and wages paid, there was no substantial benefit—i.e., no remedial interest—in continuing unfair dismissal remedy procedures before the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, even if the employer does not use the explicit term “dismissal,” measures that in substance terminate the employment relationship—such as retrieval of a laptop and access card, processing loss of coverage under the four major social insurances, and payment of severance or final settlement—may amount to an implied dismissal. However, if the employer cancels the dismissal and orders reinstatement, or pays all wages for the dismissal period so that the purpose of the unfair dismissal remedy application has already been achieved, the remedial interest in continuing procedures before the Labor Relations Commission may disappear. In such circumstances, the worker should consider whether to pursue remaining issues through other procedures, such as civil litigation. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, regardless of whether the dismissal is a redundancy dismissal or an ordinary dismissal, a series of actions that terminate the employment relationship—such as filing loss of coverage under the four major social insurances, retrieving company equipment, and processing final settlement—may be evaluated as an implied dismissal. In addition, where an unfair dismissal dispute arises, as recognized in case law, if the employer explicitly cancels the dismissal and promptly proceeds with reinstatement and payment of wages for the dismissal period, the remedial interest at the Labor Relations Commission stage may be extinguished. To prevent further disputes, however, the employer should ensure that the process and its contents are clearly documented in writing and that reasonable conditions for reinstatement are provided. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Existence of a Dismissal Taking into account that the IT manager requested retrieval of the worker’s laptop, stating that he had received an email from HR regarding the worker’s resignation; that the worker’s coverage under the four major social insurances was processed as lost; that the worker’s IRP account information was requested; and that the worker’s unused annual leave allowance was calculated and paid as wages, the employer is deemed to have impliedly dismissed the worker on 11 July 2025. b. Existence of Remedial Interest Since the employer cancelled the dismissal and paid wages for the dismissal period and for November 2025, remedial interest is not recognized. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of a Dismissal Taking into account that the IT manager requested retrieval of the worker’s laptop, stating that he had received an email from HR regarding the worker’s resignation; that the worker’s coverage under the four major social insurances was processed as lost; that the worker’s IRP account information was requested; and that the worker’s unused annual leave allowance was calculated and paid as wages, the employer is deemed to have impliedly dismissed the worker on 11 July 2025. b. Existence of Remedial Interest Since the employer cancelled the dismissal and paid wages for the dismissal period and for November 2025, remedial interest is not recognized. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on Remedial Interest (70% Wage Standby Order)” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, implied dismissal (laptop retrieval · loss of four major social insurances), 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 Case Law” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on Remedial Interest (70% Wage Standby Order),” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to implied dismissal (laptop retrieval · loss of four major social insurances) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Implied Dismissal (Laptop Retrieval · Loss of Four Major Social Insurances).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article