[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the application was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “grounds for dismissal (failure to comply with amendment order).” Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1949 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-06 · Case Type: Dismissal Summary of Key Issue: Although the Commission requested the worker to amend the relief sought (application purport) more than twice, the worker failed to comply. This falls under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, “where the applicant fails to make an amendment despite being requested to do so two or more times,” and thus constitutes grounds for dismissal of the application. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. However, despite repeated requests by the Commission to correct defects in the application, the worker did not comply, and the case was closed by dismissal of the application. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, relying on Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, dismissed the application on procedural grounds without a decision on the merits. The issue in this case is whether “where the Labor Relations Commission has requested amendment of the relief sought (application purport) two or more times and the worker fails to comply, the application for relief from unfair dismissal may be dismissed.” The panel held that, given that the Commission requested the worker to amend the relief sought more than twice and the worker ultimately failed to do so, the case falls under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which provides for “where the applicant fails to make an amendment despite being requested to do so two or more times.” As the dismissal in this case remained in a state where the worker’s application did not meet the formal requirements, the panel found that the application itself was to be dismissed without examining the legitimacy of the dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of the Issue The issue in this case is whether, where a worker who has filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal fails to comply with repeated amendment orders from the Labor Relations Commission, the Commission may dismiss the application on the ground of “defect in application requirements” without ruling on the unfairness of the dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The Labor Relations Commission based its decision on the following: first, as grounds for dismissal of an application are not directly stipulated in individual statutes such as the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission must be interpreted and applied; second, Article 60(1)2 of those Rules expressly provides as a ground for dismissal “where the applicant fails to make an amendment despite being requested to do so two or more times”; and third, in this case, the Commission in fact requested amendment of the relief sought more than twice, yet the worker did not respond at all. Accordingly, the Commission deemed that the application lacked the lawful requirements for filing and concluded that it was appropriate to dismiss the application without a hearing on the merits regarding the legitimacy of the dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) After a worker files an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission in relation to unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal, etc., the worker must faithfully comply within the prescribed time limits with any amendment orders, requests for submission of materials, and appearance orders issued by the Commission. If an amendment order is neglected, as in this case, the application may be dismissed without any examination of whether the dismissal was unfair, and the worker may thereby lose the important opportunity of the Labor Relations Commission relief procedure. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the company’s perspective, upon receiving notice from the Labor Relations Commission that an application for relief has been filed, it is important first to closely monitor the progress of the procedure. Even if the application is dismissed due to the worker’s failure to comply with an amendment order, the dispute may continue through a renewed application or litigation. It is therefore advisable to organize in advance the evidence and legal arguments concerning the substantive grounds and procedural legitimacy of the dismissal. This decision underscores that in unfair dismissal disputes, “procedure” is as important as “substance,” and that if the application requirements are not satisfied at the Labor Relations Commission stage, no decision on the merits will be rendered. In this respect, it is of significant practical importance. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History Although the Commission requested the worker to amend the relief sought (application purport) more than twice, the worker failed to comply. This falls under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, “where the applicant fails to make an amendment despite being requested to do so two or more times,” and thus constitutes grounds for dismissal of the application. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Although the Commission requested the worker to amend the relief sought (application purport) more than twice, the worker failed to comply. This falls under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, “where the applicant fails to make an amendment despite being requested to do so two or more times,” and thus constitutes grounds for dismissal of the application. [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Dismissal (Failure to Appear 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” - “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Cases” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, grounds for dismissal (failure to comply with amendment order), 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, “‘Legal Applicability Requirements (Restaurant with Fewer than 5 Employees)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Cases,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to grounds for dismissal (failure to comply with amendment order) can be found under “List of Decisions on Grounds for Dismissal (Failure to Comply with Amendment Order).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article