[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee partially prevailed on the issue of “existence of dismissal (disciplinary dismissal for unauthorized absence).” Adjudicating body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae570 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-31 · Case result: Partially upheld Summary of key issues: A. (Principal application) Existence of Dismissal 1 There is insufficient basis to recognize that the employment relationship was definitively terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore it is difficult to conclude that Dismissal 1 actually existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, alleging unfair dismissal. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether a dismissal in fact existed and, further, whether the disciplinary dismissal was justified. The employee argued that there had been a unilateral dismissal by the employer, while the employer contended that the case involved either a resignation or a disciplinary dismissal based on unauthorized absence. The proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission were conducted on this basis. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case were: “Whether the first measure can be regarded as a dismissal unrelated to the employee’s intent, and further, whether the second disciplinary dismissal based on unauthorized absence/non-attendance was justified in terms of grounds for discipline and procedural requirements.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The adjudicating panel in this case found that: there was a lack of clear expression of intent to dismiss and evidence sufficient to conclude that the employment relationship had been definitively terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent; it was difficult to determine that the employee’s actual cessation of work, if any, and the circumstances thereof were attributable to a notice of dismissal; and, under the legal principles governing the existence of dismissal, a “unilateral termination irrespective of the employee’s intent” must be recognized in order for a dismissal to be found. Accordingly, the panel held that it was difficult to conclude that the first alleged dismissal (Dismissal 1) actually existed. With respect to the second dismissal (Dismissal 2), which was contested in the alternative, the panel found that the employee’s repeated non-attendance constituted a breach of the duty of faithful service and amounted to unauthorized absence, thereby constituting a just cause for disciplinary action; that the employer complied with the procedures set forth in the work rules by affording the employee an opportunity to explain and convening a disciplinary committee; and that the employer fulfilled the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by notifying the grounds and timing of dismissal in writing. On this basis, the panel found that Dismissal 2 was justified in terms of both grounds and procedure. The dismissal measures in this case were therefore adjudicated as follows: the principal application concerning Dismissal 1 was rejected on the ground that the existence of the dismissal itself was not established, and the alternative application concerning Dismissal 2 was found to be a justified disciplinary dismissal that did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, in order to assert that the employer’s measure constitutes unfair dismissal, it is necessary to prove not merely conflict or pressure to resign, but a clear expression of intent by the employer to terminate the employment relationship irrespective of the employee’s will, and the resulting termination of the employment relationship. In addition, where there has been unauthorized absence or prolonged non-attendance, this may constitute a breach of the duty of faithful service and serve as grounds for disciplinary dismissal. Accordingly, even in the midst of a dispute, it is important to document your intention to report to work, your actual efforts to provide labor, and your communications with the company in detail. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, whether the termination of the employment relationship is characterized as a “resignation” or a “dismissal” will often be the starting point of a dispute. In cases of resignation, you should always obtain a handwritten resignation letter or retain clear written or electronic records. When imposing disciplinary dismissal for unauthorized absence, you should reconfirm the disciplinary grounds and levels set out in the work rules, and strictly follow all procedures—such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing an opportunity for explanation, and giving written notice of the grounds and timing of dismissal—so that the legitimacy of the dismissal is more likely to be upheld by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. This precedent clearly illustrates that, in applications for remedy for unfair dismissal, the first key gateway is whether a dismissal actually exists, and only at the next stage are the justifiability of the grounds for discipline and the procedural propriety examined. Both employees and employers should therefore organize the facts and evidence systematically from the earliest stage. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&) 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. (Principal application) Existence of Dismissal 1 There is insufficient basis to recognize that the employment relationship was definitively terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore it is difficult to conclude that Dismissal 1 actually existed. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues that presuppose the existence of Dismissal 1. B. (Alternative application) Justifiability of Dismissal 2 The employee’s non-attendance constitutes a breach of the duty of faithful service or unauthorized absence, and thus is recognized as a just cause for disciplinary action. The employer afforded an opportunity for explanation in accordance with the procedures set forth in the work rules and notified the grounds and timing of dismissal in writing, and therefore there was no procedural illegality … 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. (Principal application) Existence of Dismissal 1 There is insufficient basis to recognize that the employment relationship was definitively terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent, and therefore it is difficult to conclude that Dismissal 1 actually existed. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues that presuppose the existence of Dismissal 1. B. (Alternative application) Justifiability of Dismissal 2 The employee’s non-attendance constitutes a breach of the duty of faithful service or unauthorized absence, and thus is recognized as a just cause for disciplinary action. The employer afforded an opportunity for explanation in accordance with the procedures set forth in the work rules and notified the grounds and timing of dismissal in writing, and therefore there was no procedural illegality … / [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Related to ‘Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return for More Than 3 Weeks)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Related to ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Related to ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (disciplinary dismissal for unauthorized absence), disciplinary dismissal, unauthorized absence, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Related to ‘Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return for More Than 3 Weeks)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of precedents related to the existence of dismissal (disciplinary dismissal for unauthorized absence) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Existence of Dismissal (Disciplinary Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article