[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee partially prevailed on the issue of “existence of dismissal (concurrent childcare leave and industrial accident medical care).” Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae128 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-29 · Case outcome: Partially upheld Summary of key issues: A. Existence and justifiability of dismissal The employee argued that the employer’s continued refusal to allow reinstatement amounted to de facto dismissal. However, there was no evidence of any notice of dismissal, processing of removal from office, or retirement, or any other material confirming termination of the employment relationship, and even the employee could not clearly conclude that the employment relationship had ended. Therefore, it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the employer’s continued refusal to allow reinstatement despite the employee’s request to return to work amounted to de facto dismissal. During the dispute, the employee challenged the legitimacy of the refusal to reinstate and the handling of leave in a situation where childcare leave and industrial accident medical care overlapped, and the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision in Case No. 2026BuHae128. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: “In a situation where there is no explicit notice of dismissal but the employer repeatedly refuses reinstatement, can this be regarded as a dismissal? Further, where childcare leave has already commenced and been approved, does subsequent approval of industrial accident medical care retroactively invalidate that childcare leave, and is the continued maintenance of the childcare leave itself justified?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that there was no evidence clearly demonstrating termination of the employment relationship, such as a notice of dismissal or processing of removal from office or retirement; that the employee themself could not definitively conclude that the employment relationship had ended; and that dismissal requires an expression of intent by the employer to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship irrespective of the employee’s will. In light of these factors, the panel found that “continued refusal to reinstate,” as alleged by the employee, was insufficient on its own to recognize the existence of a dismissal. The panel also found that the employee had personally applied for childcare leave and the employer had approved it; that childcare leave, under the relevant statutes, is a form of voluntary leave that commences on the basis of the employee’s application and the employer’s approval; and that it is difficult to regard approval of industrial accident medical care alone as automatically and retroactively invalidating childcare leave that has already commenced. On this basis, the panel held that the childcare leave from 9 March 2026 was lawful and valid. However, the panel pointed out that if, after 20 May 2026, the employee no longer resided with the child, thereby causing a significant change in the underlying condition for childcare leave—namely, “actually raising a child under eight years of age or in the second grade of elementary school or below”—then the justification for maintaining childcare leave for the period thereafter must be strictly reviewed separately. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For an employee to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal, mere refusal to reinstate or a passive attitude by the employer is not sufficient. It is important to secure evidence that proves the employer’s expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship, such as a notice of dismissal, processing of removal from office, or retirement. Where childcare leave and industrial accident medical care are intertwined, employees should systematically retain documents showing which type of leave was applied for, when, for what reason, and how the employer approved it (applications, approvals, emails, text messages, etc.). In addition, because childcare leave presupposes “actual childcare” of the child, if there is any change in cohabitation with the child or in the actual childcare situation, it is advisable to consult with a labor law professional in advance regarding discussions with the company and whether to change or terminate the leave, so as to prevent any disadvantage. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, in order to terminate an employment relationship, the just cause for dismissal and written notice required under Articles 23 and 27 of the Labor Standards Act must be satisfied. Therefore, when refusing reinstatement or taking personnel measures, the wording of documents and the procedures should be clearly distinguished so that such actions are not misunderstood as “dismissal.” As various types of leave such as childcare leave and industrial accident medical care can coexist, it is necessary to refine work rules and HR regulations to specify the requirements for application and approval, duration, rules on overlap and conversion between different types of leave, and the reinstatement procedures when the grounds for leave cease to exist. In particular, with respect to childcare leave, it is helpful to establish internal standards on what investigation and verification procedures the company will follow, and how it will decide whether to maintain or change the leave, when there is a change in cohabitation with the child or in the actual childcare situation. Such standards can help reduce future disputes over unfair dismissal or unfair handling of leave. In this type of case, both employees and employers should bear in mind that the existence of dismissal and the legitimacy of leave can turn on the documented facts and the precise application of the relevant legal principles. From the Labor Relations Commission stage, it is important to design a strategy with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& for both dispute prevention and dispute resolution. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence and Justifiability of Dismissal The employee argued that the employer’s continued refusal to allow reinstatement amounted to de facto dismissal. However, there was no evidence confirming termination of the employment relationship, such as a notice of dismissal or processing of removal from office or retirement, and even the employee could not clearly conclude that the employment relationship had ended. Therefore, it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed. B. Legitimacy of the Leave The employee personally applied for childcare leave and the employer approved it, and it is difficult to regard approval of industrial accident medical care alone as retroactively invalidating childcare leave that has already commenced. Therefore, the childcare leave from 9 March 2026 is lawful and valid. However, as of 20 May 2026 the employee was not cohabiting with the child … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Existence and Justifiability of Dismissal The employee argued that the employer’s continued refusal to allow reinstatement amounted to de facto dismissal. However, there was no evidence confirming termination of the employment relationship, such as a notice of dismissal or processing of removal from office or retirement, and even the employee could not clearly conclude that the employment relationship had ended. Therefore, it is difficult to find that a dismissal existed. B. Legitimacy of the Leave The employee personally applied for childcare leave and the employer approved it, and it is difficult to regard approval of industrial accident medical care alone as retroactively invalidating childcare leave that has already commenced. Therefore, the childcare leave from 9 March 2026 is lawful and valid. However, as of 20 May 2026 the employee was not cohabiting with the child … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Absence of Consent to Voluntary Resignation)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (concurrent childcare leave and industrial accident medical care), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Absence of Consent to Voluntary Resignation)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (concurrent childcare leave and industrial accident medical care) can be viewed together in the “Existence of Dismissal (Concurrent Childcare Leave and Industrial Accident Medical Care) Related Decisions” list. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article