[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “existence of dismissal · violation of written notice requirement (error in employment end date).” Date of Decision: 2026-08-04 · Decision-Making Body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae592 Summary of Key Issues: A. Whether a dismissal exists The employer’s notification to the employees on 29 May 2026 (effective 31 May 2026) of termination of their employment contracts constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. This is because, even if the amended employment contracts stated an employment end date of 25 May 2026, the employees in fact provided work until 31 May 2026, and therefore the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral manifestation of intent. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer orally and in effect notified the employees of the termination of their employment contracts, raising issues as to whether the termination constituted unfair dismissal and whether the Labor Relations Commission would grant an order for monetary compensation. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for an order for monetary compensation filed together with the unfair dismissal relief application, and ordered the employer to pay an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of decision, deducting any interim earnings, thereby bringing the case to a close. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is: “In a situation where the employer asserts automatic extinction of the employment relationship on the ground that the employment end date under the amended employment contract has already passed, whether there in fact exists a unilateral manifestation of intent by the employer to terminate the employment contract, and further, whether a dismissal without written notice constitutes unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employer notified the employees of termination of their employment contracts on 29 May 2026 (effective 31 May 2026); that, although the amended employment contracts stated 25 May 2026 as the employment end date, the employees actually provided work until 31 May; and that the termination of the employment contracts was effected not by the employees’ resignation or simple expiration of a fixed term, but by the employer’s unilateral manifestation of intent. Accordingly, it held that the termination of the employment relationship did not result from automatic expiration of the contract term, but constituted a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. In addition, the panel noted that the employer, in dismissing the employees, failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; that the obligation to give written notice of dismissal is a mandatory provision intended to clarify the existence, timing, and reasons for dismissal in order to prevent disputes and to guarantee the employee an adequate opportunity to respond; and that, according to case law and authoritative commentary, a dismissal without written notice is not legally effective. On this basis, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was procedurally defective, null and void, and therefore unfair. Furthermore, since a finding of unfair dismissal in principle means that the employment contract relationship continues to exist, the panel held that the employer must pay an amount equivalent to wages for the period during which work was not provided due to reasons attributable to the employer. In doing so, any interim earnings the employees obtained from other employment during the dismissal period must be deducted, and any amounts already paid up to the date of the reinstatement order must also be offset, in accordance with established case law and practice. On this basis, the panel accepted the employees’ application for an order for monetary compensation. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even if an employment end date is specified in the employment contract, if you actually provided work beyond that date, the issue may not be simple expiration of a fixed term but whether the employer’s action constitutes a dismissal. When you are notified of dismissal, you should request a written document stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. If the employment relationship has been terminated only by oral notice or de facto measures without written notice, you should actively file an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal and for an order for monetary compensation. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is essential to clearly recognize that the legal requirements differ completely depending on whether the termination of the employment relationship is by expiration of a fixed term, resignation, mutual agreement, or a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Whether it is a redundancy dismissal or an ordinary dismissal, if you intend to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship irrespective of the employee’s will, you must provide written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal (Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act), and you must preserve evidence that such written notice was delivered to the employee. If you mistakenly treat the contract as having “automatically expired” based solely on the end date in the employment contract and proceed only with oral notice or by filing loss-of-coverage reports for the four major social insurances, there is a very high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find unfair dismissal and grant an order for monetary compensation. Accordingly, you should consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review the necessity of dismissal, the procedures, and your evidentiary strategy. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the employer’s unilateral termination of the employment relationship was found to constitute a dismissal, and the dismissal was held to be unfair due to violation of the written notice requirement, leading the Commission to accept the employees’ application for an order for monetary compensation. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Whether a dismissal exists The employer’s notification to the employees on 29 May 2026 (effective 31 May 2026) of termination of their employment contracts constitutes a dismissal. Even if the amended employment contracts stated 25 May 2026 as the employment end date, given that the employees actually provided work until 31 May 2026, it is reasonable to view the employment relationship as having been terminated by the employer’s unilateral manifestation of intent, and thus that a dismissal exists. b. Whether the dismissal was justified The employer violated the obligation to give written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employees; therefore, the dismissal is unfair. c. Whether to accept the application for an order for monetary compensation The employees’ application for an order for monetary compensation is accepted, and it is deemed appropriate to order the employer to pay an amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of decision, after deducting interim earnings and any amounts already paid by the employer up to the date of the reinstatement order. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Relief Interest · Refusal to Re-employ (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal · violation of written notice requirement (error in employment end date), 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. ※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal · violation of written notice requirement (error in employment end date) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal · Violation of Written Notice Requirement (Error in Employment End Date).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article