[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the unfair dismissal relief application was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “dismissal (failure to comply with amendment order).” Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2277 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-07 · Case type: Dismissal Summary of key issue: The Labor Relations Commission issued two or more amendment orders to the employee regarding the relief application, but the employee failed to comply. The employee also did not submit any opinion on the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer intended to pursue the relief application, and held that this fell under the ground for dismissal under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission (“failure to comply with an amendment order on two or more occasions”). 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking relief from unfair dismissal. However, the case was terminated by dismissal because the employee failed to comply with amendment orders and other procedural requirements during the course of the proceedings. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, relying on Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, regarded the employee as having effectively abandoned the intention to pursue the relief application, and dismissed the unfair dismissal relief application. Ⅱ. Summary of the Issue The issue in this case is: “Where the Labor Relations Commission has issued two or more amendment orders regarding a relief application but the employee fails to comply, and further fails to submit any opinion on the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing, may the Commission dismiss the employee’s application for relief from unfair dismissal?” Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The adjudicating panel noted that, despite the Labor Relations Commission issuing two or more amendment orders to correct defects in the relief application, the employee did not make any amendments; that the employee did not respond to the request for an opinion on whether to omit a hearing and proceed with a single-commissioner hearing; and that, in light of this conduct, the employee could be viewed as no longer intending to seek relief from unfair dismissal through the Commission’s procedures. Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal at issue could not be the subject of a merits review because the relief application failed to satisfy the procedural requirements for admissibility. It therefore found that the case fell under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which provides for dismissal “where the applicant fails to comply with an amendment order on two or more occasions,” and that dismissal of the application was appropriate. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Once an employee has filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, it is essential to respond within the prescribed time limits to any amendment orders, attendance notices, or notices regarding omission of a hearing and scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing issued by the Labor Relations Commission. If the employee repeatedly fails to comply with amendment orders or remains out of contact for an extended period, the case may be terminated by “dismissal” regardless of whether the dismissal was substantively unfair, and the employee may obtain no effective relief at the Commission stage. If it is difficult to prepare the application form or to understand the required amendments, it is safer to seek early assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to organize the contents of the relief application and supporting evidence. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when an employee files an application for relief from unfair dismissal, it is necessary to thoroughly prepare the grounds and supporting materials for the justification of the dismissal, regardless of whether the Labor Relations Commission ultimately dismisses the case. Even if the case is dismissed due to the employee’s non-cooperation, as in this matter, the justification for the dismissal may later be contested again in other proceedings such as civil litigation. In addition, if the employee fails to respond despite repeated amendment orders or attendance notices from the Labor Relations Commission, the employer should bear in mind the possibility of dismissal under each item of Article 60(1) of the Rules (in particular subparagraphs 2 and 7), and systematically record and preserve the progress of the proceedings to help manage dispute risk. 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History The Labor Relations Commission issued two or more amendment orders to the employee regarding the relief application, but the employee failed to comply and did not submit any opinion on the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer intended to pursue the relief application, and held that this constituted a ground for dismissal under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The Labor Relations Commission issued two or more amendment orders to the employee regarding the relief application, but the employee failed to comply and did not submit any opinion on the notice of omission of a hearing and the scheduling of a single-commissioner hearing. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer intended to pursue the relief application, and held that this constituted a ground for dismissal under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission. [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Cases” – Date of decision: – Case type: Dismissal - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Cases” - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Cases” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, Dismissal (failure to comply with amendment order), Miscellaneous, 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, “‘Effectiveness of Resignation Letter (Handwritten Submission After Notice of Term Expiry)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Cases,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to dismissal (failure to comply with amendment order) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Dismissal (Failure to Comply with Amendment Order).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article