[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “procedural defects (failure to follow disciplinary procedures).” Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1758 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Outcome: Fully upheld Summary of key issues: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerns the employer’s action of sending the employee a notice of termination of the employment contract and paying dismissal notice allowance (statutory notice pay) on the same day. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and, as in many cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission focused its review on (i) whether a dismissal had in fact occurred and (ii) whether the prescribed disciplinary procedures had been followed. The key issue in this case is whether, where a notice of termination of the employment contract has been sent and dismissal notice allowance has been paid, such action constitutes a dismissal, and whether a dismissal carried out without following the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment constitutes an unfair dismissal on procedural grounds. The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employer had delivered a notice of termination of the employment contract to the employee and paid dismissal notice allowance on the same day, that no disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment had been followed at all, and that there was no objective evidence that the employer had requested the employee to submit any explanatory materials. Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was procedurally unfair, as the procedural defects were serious and manifest. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are whether, in circumstances where the employer has sent a notice of termination of the employment contract and paid dismissal notice allowance, such action constitutes a de facto dismissal, and whether the Labor Relations Commission may recognize unfair dismissal solely on the ground that the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment were not followed. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning First, the Labor Relations Commission held that “dismissal” means any unilateral act by which the employer terminates the employment relationship, regardless of its name or form, and that, since dismissal notice allowance was paid simultaneously with the sending of the notice of termination of the employment contract, the employer’s intention to terminate the employment contract was clear. On this basis, the Commission regarded the measure in question as a dismissal. Second, the Commission found that no disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment had been followed at all, and that there was no evidence confirming that the employer had provided the employee with an opportunity to explain the grounds for dismissal. Third, the Commission noted that Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and relevant case law strictly require written notice and procedural safeguards in cases of dismissal. On these grounds, the Commission determined that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. As the dismissal was found to be unfair solely due to procedural defects, the Commission considered it unnecessary to separately examine the substantive justification for the dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, if there has been both a “notice of termination of the employment contract + payment of dismissal notice allowance,” you should be aware that, even if the employer characterizes the situation as a “voluntary resignation,” it may in substance constitute a dismissal. In addition, if you were unilaterally dismissed without going through the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment, or if the grounds and effective date of dismissal were not clearly notified in writing, you may challenge the dismissal as procedurally unfair. You should therefore make sure to secure all relevant materials, such as the dismissal notice, text messages, emails, and pay statements. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even if the termination of an employment contract is described using another term such as “mutual separation” or “contract termination,” if it is in substance a dismissal, you must strictly comply with Articles 23 and 27 of the Labor Standards Act and the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment. Even when handling a matter that would ordinarily constitute grounds for disciplinary dismissal in the form of an ordinary dismissal, case law has taken a strict stance requiring compliance with disciplinary procedures. Accordingly, you should faithfully implement procedures such as prior requests for explanation, convening a disciplinary committee, and providing specific written notice of the grounds and effective date of dismissal. At the Labor Relations Commission stage, seeking advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and, prior to any dismissal, reviewing and refining your rules of employment and disciplinary processes will greatly help prevent disputes. 2. Matters Adjudicated (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Whether there was a dismissal in this case In light of the fact that the employer sent the employee a notice of termination of the employment contract and paid dismissal notice allowance on the same day, the termination of the employment contract in this case constitutes a dismissal. (b) Whether the dismissal in this case was justified (grounds and procedure) Because the employer did not follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment, and because there is no evidence that the employer requested the employee to submit explanatory materials, the dismissal is procedurally unfair. Therefore, without the need to examine the remaining issues, the dismissal in this case is unfair. 3. Summary of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Whether there was a dismissal in this case In light of the fact that the employer sent the employee a notice of termination of the employment contract and paid dismissal notice allowance on the same day, the termination of the employment contract in this case constitutes a dismissal. (b) Whether the dismissal in this case was justified (grounds and procedure) Because the employer did not follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment, and because there is no evidence that the employer requested the employee to submit explanatory materials, the dismissal is procedurally unfair. Therefore, without the need to examine the remaining issues, the dismissal in this case is unfair. / [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Conditional Offer of Employment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, procedural defects (failure to follow disciplinary procedures), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Workplace Bullying · Change in Allowances)’,” in a new window. ※ You can view the list of precedents related to procedural defects (failure to follow disciplinary procedures) at “List of Precedents Concerning Procedural Defects (Failure to Follow Disciplinary Procedures).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article