[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “proof of the existence of dismissal (where only the employee’s statement exists).” Decision-making body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae414 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-29 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issue: The burden of proof that the employment relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee who asserts such dismissal. However, where there is no objective evidence or specific surrounding circumstances, other than the employee’s own statement, to show that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of dismissal, it is difficult to find that a dismissal actually existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, alleging that the employer had orally notified him/her of dismissal. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The Commission placed weight on the fact that, apart from the employee’s statement, there was no objective material that could support a finding of dismissal, and therefore did not accept the application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where an employee claims unfair dismissal and files an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, the existence of a dismissal can be recognized solely on the basis of the employee’s own statement, without any objective evidence to prove that a notice of dismissal was given. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case held that the burden of proof that the employment relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee who asserts such dismissal; that there were no objective circumstances confirming that the employer had taken any other measures to terminate the employment relationship (such as a written notice of dismissal, a report of loss of coverage under the four major social insurances, or settlement of retirement benefits); and that, apart from the employee’s statement, there was an insufficient amount of supporting materials such as written documents, recordings, or consistent statements from third parties. In light of the above, the panel found it difficult to recognize that the unilateral notice of dismissal alleged by the employee had actually occurred. Since, in this case, the very existence of a dismissal was not proven from the outset, the panel determined that the dismissal could not be regarded as unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees who wish to allege unfair dismissal must bear in mind that they must first prove that a notice of dismissal was actually given. It is advisable to preserve, on a routine basis, materials from which an intention to dismiss can be inferred, such as text or messenger messages, emails, written advance notices of dismissal, recordings, and statements from colleagues, and to leave a written or message record of the content of any meetings wherever possible. In particular, if you hear statements such as “Quit,” or “Don’t come in from tomorrow,” you should immediately organize the facts by means of a content-certified letter, text message, etc. This can later serve as important evidence when the existence of a dismissal is disputed before the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, where the reason for termination of the employment relationship is not dismissal but resignation or termination by mutual agreement, it is essential, for the prevention of disputes, to obtain clear written documents such as a letter of resignation or an agreement on termination. In addition, when actually carrying out a dismissal, the employer must comply with the statutory obligation under the Labor Standards Act to give written notice of dismissal, and should consistently retain records of the procedures, such as the written notice of dismissal, the report of loss of coverage under the four major social insurances, and details of wage and severance pay settlement. Even where, in the course of conflict with an employee, the employer makes remarks to the effect of “Quit,” such statements may later be misunderstood as a dismissal, so particular care should be taken with respect to wording and record-keeping. This decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, not only the “justifiability of the dismissal” but also the very question of “whether a dismissal actually existed” can become a separate core issue, and that it is important to understand precisely how the burden of proof is allocated in this regard. When preparing for Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures, it is advisable to consult with an expert with extensive experience in unfair dismissal cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to systematically organize evidence concerning the existence of dismissal and the cause of termination from the initial stages. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History The burden of proof that the employment relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee who asserts such dismissal. However, where there is no objective evidence or specific surrounding circumstances, other than the employee’s own statement, to show that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of dismissal, it is difficult to find that a dismissal actually existed. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The burden of proof that the employment relationship was terminated by dismissal lies with the employee who asserts such dismissal. However, where there is no objective evidence or specific surrounding circumstances, other than the employee’s own statement, to show that the employer unilaterally notified the employee of dismissal, it is difficult to find that a dismissal actually existed. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Leaving the Workplace After Work)” - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Voluntary Resignation (Handwritten Letter of Resignation)” - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, proof of the existence of dismissal (where only the employee’s statement exists), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Voluntary Resignation (Handwritten Letter of Resignation),” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to proof of the existence of dismissal (where only the employee’s statement exists) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Proof of the Existence of Dismissal (Where Only the Employee’s Statement Exists).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article