[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the proceedings were terminated by a procedural dismissal on the issue of “failure to amend (dismissal decision).” Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1995 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-31 · Case outcome: Dismissal Key issue summary: To the employee in 2026. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. However, due to procedural defects, the case was dismissed without a decision on the merits. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission repeatedly requested the employee to amend and clarify the grounds and purpose of the application, but closed the case on the ground that the employee, without justifiable reason, failed to comply with these requests. As the substantive legitimacy of the alleged unfair dismissal itself was not examined, this case clearly illustrates the importance of procedural management. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where the Labor Relations Commission has repeatedly requested amendment of the application but the employee fails to comply, may the Commission dismiss the application for remedy regardless of the existence and legitimacy of the alleged unfair dismissal?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case relied on the following: the fact that the employee was requested a total of five times—on 21 April, 4 May, 12 May, 20 May, and 28 May 2026—to amend and clarify the grounds and purpose of the application; the fact that Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission explicitly provides that “where the applicant fails to amend despite two or more requests for amendment” constitutes a ground for dismissal; and the fact that the employee, without justifiable reason, failed to comply with these requests. In light of these circumstances, before examining whether the dismissal in this case was unfair, the panel held that the application for remedy failed to satisfy the requirements under the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission and therefore fell under a ground for dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) When an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to pay as much attention to the form of the application and responses to amendment requests as to the substantive arguments on “unfair dismissal.” If you receive a request for amendment from the Commission (such as to supplement content, clarify facts, or organize the relief sought), failure to respond faithfully within the deadline may result in dismissal of the case without a decision on the merits, as in this case. In particular, under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, if you fail to respond despite receiving two or more requests for amendment, the case may be dismissed. If it is difficult to respond, you should at least ensure a minimum level of amendment, with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even if an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is dismissed due to the employee’s failure to amend, you should bear in mind that a civil lawsuit or an additional application for remedy may subsequently be filed. Accordingly, it is advisable to systematically organize relevant materials from the Labor Relations Commission stage, including the grounds for dismissal, the dismissal procedures, and whether the requirements for redundancy dismissal are satisfied. Furthermore, rather than taking comfort solely in the dismissal decision, you should pre-emptively establish and refine your HR/disciplinary procedures and evidentiary systems so that you can substantiate the legitimacy of your actions if the same matter is raised again. 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History Although the employee was requested a total of five times—on 21 April, 4 May, 12 May, 20 May, and 28 May 2026—to amend and clarify the grounds and purpose of the application, the employee, without justifiable reason, failed to comply. This falls under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, “where the applicant fails to amend despite two or more requests for amendment,” and thus constitutes a ground for dismissal. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Although the employee was requested a total of five times—on 21 April, 4 May, 12 May, 20 May, and 28 May 2026—to amend and clarify the grounds and purpose of the application, the employee, without justifiable reason, failed to comply. This falls under Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, “where the applicant fails to amend despite two or more requests for amendment,” and thus constitutes a ground for dismissal. / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case outcome: Dismissal - ‘Refusal to Confirm Regular Employment After Probation (Absence of Evaluation Score Criteria)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, failure to amend (dismissal decision), 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, ‘Refusal to Confirm Regular Employment After Probation (Absence of Evaluation Score Criteria)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision, in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to failure to amend (dismissal decision) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Failure to Amend (Dismissal Decision).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article