[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defect in written notice (report of loss of qualification for the four major social insurances).” Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae403 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-06-26 · Outcome: Application fully upheld Summary of key issues: A. Whether a dismissal existed – The termination of the employment relationship did not fall under any ground for automatic termination, and was deemed to have been effected unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer terminated the employment relationship with the employee without issuing a separate written notice of dismissal, and unilaterally ended the employment relationship regardless of the employee’s intent. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, disputing whether this measure constituted an unfair dismissal. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission fully upheld the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, finding that the employer’s violation of the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act rendered the dismissal unfair. In accordance with the employee’s request, the Commission issued a monetary compensation order directing the employer to pay 8,786,400 KRW, equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case were: (i) whether the termination of the employment relationship, although characterized by the employer as “automatic retirement” or automatic extinction, in fact constituted a dismissal as a unilateral termination against the employee’s will; and (ii) whether a dismissal carried out without written notice is invalid as a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that the termination of the employment relationship did not fall under any ground for automatic extinction such as the employee’s death, reaching the mandatory retirement age, or expiration of a fixed-term contract; that there was no indication the employee had expressed an intention to resign or agreed to a consensual termination; and that, although the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship, it did not provide a written notice specifying the grounds and timing of the dismissal. In light of these circumstances, the termination of the employment relationship had to be regarded as a dismissal unilaterally carried out by the employer against the employee’s will. As there was no written notice of dismissal, the dismissal violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and was procedurally defective. Accordingly, the panel held that this dismissal was unfair. The panel also took into account that the employee had requested monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and that wage loss had continued from the time of dismissal up to the present. It therefore found it appropriate to recognize, by way of a monetary compensation order, the full amount of wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if the employer describes the situation as “automatic termination of contract” or “automatic retirement,” if the employment relationship is unilaterally severed without the employee’s express intention to resign, this may constitute a dismissal. Furthermore, if, when being informed of the dismissal, the employee does not receive a written notice stating the grounds and timing of the dismissal, the employee can actively challenge whether there has been a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. It is therefore important to carefully preserve materials relating to the actual circumstances of termination, such as text messages, messenger records, the date of the report of loss of qualification for the four major social insurances, and similar evidence. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is essential to clearly distinguish whether the termination of the employment relationship constitutes automatic retirement, a genuine resignation, or a dismissal. Where the employment relationship is terminated against the employee’s will, the employer must, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide a written notice that specifically states the grounds and timing of the dismissal. In addition, measures such as filing a report of loss of insured status for the four major social insurances, blocking access to the workplace, or cutting off access to company systems, which in effect prevent the employee from working, may themselves be evaluated as a dismissal. To prevent disputes, it is therefore essential to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and to ensure that there are justifiable grounds and lawful procedures. As this case shows, unfair dismissal may be found solely on the basis of a defect in written notice. HR personnel and management should therefore prepare in advance appropriate templates for dismissal-related documents, internal approval procedures, and methods of notification. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether a dismissal existed The termination of the employment relationship did not fall under any ground for automatic termination, and was deemed to have been effected unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will. B. Whether the dismissal was justified In dismissing the employee, the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; therefore, the dismissal was unfair. C. Whether to accept the application for a monetary compensation order It was deemed appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of 8,786,400 KRW, equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether a dismissal existed The termination of the employment relationship did not fall under any ground for automatic termination, and was deemed to have been effected unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will. B. Whether the dismissal was justified In dismissing the employee, the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; therefore, the dismissal was unfair. C. Whether to accept the application for a monetary compensation order It was deemed appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of 8,786,400 KRW, equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. / [More Related Decisions] - “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissal of application [Tags] Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (report of loss of qualification for the 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 Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Denial of Employee Status (Funeral Vehicle Driver)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to defect in written notice (report of loss of qualification for the four major social insurances) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Defect in Written Notice (Report of Loss of Qualification for the Four Major Social Insurances)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article