[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “failure to submit a reinstatement application (long-term sick leave).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1338 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-29 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: … The company granted a second leave of absence for two months (2026. 1. 1. ~ 2. 28.) so that the employee could receive sufficient treatment. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee who had been on leave of absence due to a long-term illness had his/her employment terminated by the company without having submitted a reinstatement application. The employee then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. The company, relying on its rules of employment, processed the employee as separated from employment (ex officio dismissal/retirement) on the grounds that, even after the expiration of the leave period, the reason for the leave had not ceased and no reinstatement application had been submitted. The employee, on the other hand, argued that he/she was still in the process of recovery and that the dismissal was therefore unfair. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where an employer has extended a period of sick leave beyond the maximum period permitted under the rules of employment, but the employee still fails to submit a reinstatement application and remains unable to provide labor, does an ex officio dismissal/retirement based on the rules of employment constitute unfair dismissal?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that: the company had provided the employee with sufficient opportunity for treatment and recovery by granting a second leave of absence (2026. 1. 1. ~ 2. 28.) beyond the leave period allowed under the rules of employment; the rules of employment expressly stipulated that failure to submit a reinstatement application upon expiration of the leave period or failure of the reason for leave to cease would constitute grounds for termination of employment; and, despite this, the employee failed to fulfill the obligation to seek reinstatement and remained in a state in which it was in fact impossible to provide labor. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the company’s ex officio dismissal/retirement was based on just cause under the Labor Standards Act. The dismissal in this case was held not to constitute unfair dismissal, on the basis that the employer’s measures to prevent a work vacuum caused by the employee’s long-term leave and to ensure compliance with the leave and reinstatement procedures under the rules of employment were legitimate. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it is essential, even while on sick leave, to carefully check the procedures set out in the rules of employment, including the leave period, the deadline for submitting a reinstatement application, and the obligation to apply for reinstatement immediately once the reason for leave has ceased. In particular, if the company provides guidance or makes a request regarding reinstatement, and there are circumstances that make it difficult to submit a written reinstatement application, the employee should at least clearly express his/her intention to return to work verbally or by email, and should communicate in a way that leaves a record to the greatest extent possible. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to set out in the rules of employment specific provisions on the leave period, whether extensions are possible, the deadline for submitting a reinstatement application, and the standards for handling cases where no application is submitted, and to clearly explain these provisions to employees in actual operation. In cases of long-term sick leave, the employer should also sufficiently secure medical documentation regarding whether the leave period should be extended, the likelihood of reinstatement, and the employee’s ability to provide labor, and should document in writing any demands for reinstatement and any notices of ex officio dismissal. This will help the employer to substantiate the legitimacy of its actions before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission is a useful example of how the “Labor Relations Commission” interprets the actual operation of leave and reinstatement systems and the relevant provisions of the rules of employment in disputes over unfair dismissal. It also suggests that, in responding to similar cases, it is highly beneficial for preventing disputes to review the structure in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History … The company granted a second leave of absence for two months (2026. 1. 1. ~ 2. 28.) so that the employee could receive sufficient treatment. Article 78 (Retirement and Date of Retirement), Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the company’s rules of employment in this case provides that, “where the leave period has expired but the employee has failed to submit a reinstatement application within the prescribed period or the reason for leave has not ceased,” and Article 79 (Dismissal), Subparagraph 2 provides that, where it is recognized that the employee is unable to perform his/her duties due to physical or mental disability, the company intends to terminate the employment relationship. Despite having granted the employee sufficient opportunity to recover by allowing a leave period that exceeded the maximum permitted under the rules of employment, the employee failed to fulfill the obligation to seek reinstatement and remained in a state in which it was impossible to provide labor … 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … The company granted a second leave of absence for two months (2026. 1. 1. ~ 2. 28.) so that the employee could receive sufficient treatment. Article 78 (Retirement and Date of Retirement), Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the company’s rules of employment in this case provides that, “where the leave period has expired but the employee has failed to submit a reinstatement application within the prescribed period or the reason for leave has not ceased,” and Article 79 (Dismissal), Subparagraph 2 provides that, where it is recognized that the employee is unable to perform his/her duties due to physical or mental disability, the company intends to terminate the employment relationship. Despite having granted the employee sufficient opportunity to recover by allowing a leave period that exceeded the maximum permitted under the rules of employment, the employee failed to fulfill the obligation to seek reinstatement and remained in a state in which it was impossible to provide labor … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remarks Made by Telephone)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Request to Resign · Expression of Intention to Resign)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, failure to submit reinstatement application (long-term sick leave), long-term sick leave · medical leave, 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Request to Resign · Expression of Intention to Resign)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to failure to submit a reinstatement application (long-term sick leave) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Failure to Submit Reinstatement Application (Long-Term Sick Leave).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article