Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision Precedent on Dismissal of Application (“Rejection for Failure to Comply with Amendment Order”) in Unfair Dismissal Cases (Unfair Dismissal 31)
- Date2026/01/03 15:48
- Read 197
[Case Information]
- Case Number: Rejection
- Date of Decision:
- Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9045 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
November 27, 2025
- Holding: Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission enumerates the grounds on which the Commission may reject an application for remedy, and Article 60(1)2 specifically provides that an application may be rejected “where the applicant has failed to make amendments despite having been ordered to amend two or more times pursuant to Article 41 (Order to Amend) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.” In this case, after the employee filed an application for remedy on October 20, 2025, this Commission ordered the employee to amend the relief sought and the grounds for the application on three separate occasions up to the single-commissioner hearing on November 27, 2025. Text messages requesting such amendment were also sent to the contact information stated in the application for remedy. Nevertheless, the employee did not respond at all. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer had any intention to pursue the application for remedy, and accordingly rejected the application.
1. Legal Implications
[Case Overview]
In this case, an employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. However, the application was rejected because the employee failed to comply with the Commission’s orders to amend. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a rejection decision under the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission on the ground that, despite multiple requests for amendment following the filing of the application, the employee provided no response and made no amendments. In this article, from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, we examine the legal significance of this rejection decision and practical points of caution, in connection with unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases more generally.
[Issue Summary]
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal completely fails to respond to repeated orders to amend issued by the Labor Relations Commission, the Commission may deem that the employee has no intention to seek a remedy and reject the application pursuant to Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
[Summary of the Commission’s Reasoning]
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides that an application shall be rejected where the applicant fails to make amendments despite having been ordered to amend two or more times under Article 41, that the employee in this case was ordered three times to amend the relief sought and the grounds for the application, and that the employee did not respond at all even though text messages were sent to the contact information stated in the application for remedy.
On that basis, the panel determined that the employee no longer had any intention to proceed with the remedy application procedure.
In this case, the dismissal disposition was held to be improper not on the basis of its substantive justification, but because the application for remedy remained deficient in terms of the formal requirements and thus did not meet the admissibility criteria.
[Practical Points – From the Employee’s Perspective]
Regardless of whether the dismissal or redundancy is in fact unfair, employees must be aware that the procedure will only be maintained if they respond faithfully and within the prescribed time limit to the Labor Relations Commission’s orders to amend. Even if the contents of the application are somewhat inaccurate, the case can proceed to a merits determination if the facts and the relief sought are supplemented through the requested amendments. Employees should therefore pay close attention to managing their contact information and complying with deadlines.
[Practical Points – From the Employer’s Perspective]
From the employer’s standpoint, even where an employee’s application for remedy is rejected, it is important to clearly understand whether the rejection was due to a defect in procedural requirements, or because the dismissal was found to be substantively justified. Even if a rejection becomes final, there may still be room to contest the validity of the dismissal in other proceedings such as civil litigation. Accordingly, employers should continue to systematically retain and organize personnel and disciplinary records, as well as evidence supporting the just cause for dismissal.
[Explanation of Terms]
1) Rejection (Gakha)
“Rejection” refers to a decision that terminates the procedure itself on the ground that the application does not satisfy the “requirements for application,” such as expiration of the filing period, lack of standing, or failure to comply with an order to amend, before determining whether the contents of the application (the merits) are correct. In other words, as in this case, where the applicant fails to comply with an order to amend, the application for remedy is blocked at the threshold without any determination as to whether the dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal.
2) Dismissal on the Merits (Gigak)
“Dismissal on the merits” means a substantive decision in which the application for remedy satisfies all formal and procedural requirements, but after examination, the dismissal or disciplinary action is found to be justified and the employee’s claims are not accepted. Thus, dismissal on the merits means “the application is procedurally proper but lacks substantive grounds,” whereas rejection means “the application itself is procedurally improper.” The two should be distinguished on this basis.
3) Order to Amend
An “order to amend” is a procedure whereby, before examining an application for remedy, the Labor Relations Commission orders the applicant to supplement the application where the entries are unclear or essential items are missing. Pursuant to Articles 41 and 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, if an employee fails to make any amendments despite having received two or more orders to amend, the Commission may deem that the employee has no intention to pursue the application and reject it. Accordingly, whether and how the applicant responds to an order to amend can determine the success or failure of the unfair dismissal remedy procedure.
2. Holding
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission enumerates the grounds on which the Commission may reject an application for remedy, and Article 60(1)2 specifically provides that an application may be rejected “where the applicant has failed to make amendments despite having been ordered to amend two or more times pursuant to Article 41 (Order to Amend) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.” In this case, after the employee filed an application for remedy on October 20, 2025, this Commission ordered the employee to amend the relief sought and the grounds for the application on three separate occasions up to the single-commissioner hearing on November 27, 2025. Text messages requesting such amendment were also sent to the contact information stated in the application for remedy. Nevertheless, the employee did not respond at all. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer had any intention to pursue the application for remedy, and accordingly rejected the application.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission enumerates the grounds on which the Commission may reject an application for remedy, and Article 60(1)2 specifically provides that an application may be rejected “where the applicant has failed to make amendments despite having been ordered to amend two or more times pursuant to Article 41 (Order to Amend) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.” In this case, after the employee filed an application for remedy on October 20, 2025, this Commission ordered the employee to amend the relief sought and the grounds for the application on three separate occasions up to the single-commissioner hearing on November 27, 2025. Text messages requesting such amendment were also sent to the contact information stated in the application for remedy. Nevertheless, the employee did not respond at all. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer had any intention to pursue the application for remedy, and accordingly rejected the application. /
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decision Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice to Spouse)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window at the following link: “Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice to Spouse)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1).”
※ The list of decision precedents relating to rejection for failure to comply with an order to amend can be viewed together at the following link: “List of Decision Precedents on Rejection for Failure to Comply with Amendment Order.”
- Case Number: Rejection
- Date of Decision:
- Adjudicating Body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9045 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
November 27, 2025
- Holding: Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission enumerates the grounds on which the Commission may reject an application for remedy, and Article 60(1)2 specifically provides that an application may be rejected “where the applicant has failed to make amendments despite having been ordered to amend two or more times pursuant to Article 41 (Order to Amend) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.” In this case, after the employee filed an application for remedy on October 20, 2025, this Commission ordered the employee to amend the relief sought and the grounds for the application on three separate occasions up to the single-commissioner hearing on November 27, 2025. Text messages requesting such amendment were also sent to the contact information stated in the application for remedy. Nevertheless, the employee did not respond at all. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer had any intention to pursue the application for remedy, and accordingly rejected the application.
1. Legal Implications
[Case Overview]
In this case, an employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. However, the application was rejected because the employee failed to comply with the Commission’s orders to amend. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a rejection decision under the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission on the ground that, despite multiple requests for amendment following the filing of the application, the employee provided no response and made no amendments. In this article, from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, we examine the legal significance of this rejection decision and practical points of caution, in connection with unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases more generally.
[Issue Summary]
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee who has filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal completely fails to respond to repeated orders to amend issued by the Labor Relations Commission, the Commission may deem that the employee has no intention to seek a remedy and reject the application pursuant to Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
[Summary of the Commission’s Reasoning]
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides that an application shall be rejected where the applicant fails to make amendments despite having been ordered to amend two or more times under Article 41, that the employee in this case was ordered three times to amend the relief sought and the grounds for the application, and that the employee did not respond at all even though text messages were sent to the contact information stated in the application for remedy.
On that basis, the panel determined that the employee no longer had any intention to proceed with the remedy application procedure.
In this case, the dismissal disposition was held to be improper not on the basis of its substantive justification, but because the application for remedy remained deficient in terms of the formal requirements and thus did not meet the admissibility criteria.
[Practical Points – From the Employee’s Perspective]
Regardless of whether the dismissal or redundancy is in fact unfair, employees must be aware that the procedure will only be maintained if they respond faithfully and within the prescribed time limit to the Labor Relations Commission’s orders to amend. Even if the contents of the application are somewhat inaccurate, the case can proceed to a merits determination if the facts and the relief sought are supplemented through the requested amendments. Employees should therefore pay close attention to managing their contact information and complying with deadlines.
[Practical Points – From the Employer’s Perspective]
From the employer’s standpoint, even where an employee’s application for remedy is rejected, it is important to clearly understand whether the rejection was due to a defect in procedural requirements, or because the dismissal was found to be substantively justified. Even if a rejection becomes final, there may still be room to contest the validity of the dismissal in other proceedings such as civil litigation. Accordingly, employers should continue to systematically retain and organize personnel and disciplinary records, as well as evidence supporting the just cause for dismissal.
[Explanation of Terms]
1) Rejection (Gakha)
“Rejection” refers to a decision that terminates the procedure itself on the ground that the application does not satisfy the “requirements for application,” such as expiration of the filing period, lack of standing, or failure to comply with an order to amend, before determining whether the contents of the application (the merits) are correct. In other words, as in this case, where the applicant fails to comply with an order to amend, the application for remedy is blocked at the threshold without any determination as to whether the dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal.
2) Dismissal on the Merits (Gigak)
“Dismissal on the merits” means a substantive decision in which the application for remedy satisfies all formal and procedural requirements, but after examination, the dismissal or disciplinary action is found to be justified and the employee’s claims are not accepted. Thus, dismissal on the merits means “the application is procedurally proper but lacks substantive grounds,” whereas rejection means “the application itself is procedurally improper.” The two should be distinguished on this basis.
3) Order to Amend
An “order to amend” is a procedure whereby, before examining an application for remedy, the Labor Relations Commission orders the applicant to supplement the application where the entries are unclear or essential items are missing. Pursuant to Articles 41 and 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, if an employee fails to make any amendments despite having received two or more orders to amend, the Commission may deem that the employee has no intention to pursue the application and reject it. Accordingly, whether and how the applicant responds to an order to amend can determine the success or failure of the unfair dismissal remedy procedure.
2. Holding
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission enumerates the grounds on which the Commission may reject an application for remedy, and Article 60(1)2 specifically provides that an application may be rejected “where the applicant has failed to make amendments despite having been ordered to amend two or more times pursuant to Article 41 (Order to Amend) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.” In this case, after the employee filed an application for remedy on October 20, 2025, this Commission ordered the employee to amend the relief sought and the grounds for the application on three separate occasions up to the single-commissioner hearing on November 27, 2025. Text messages requesting such amendment were also sent to the contact information stated in the application for remedy. Nevertheless, the employee did not respond at all. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer had any intention to pursue the application for remedy, and accordingly rejected the application.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission enumerates the grounds on which the Commission may reject an application for remedy, and Article 60(1)2 specifically provides that an application may be rejected “where the applicant has failed to make amendments despite having been ordered to amend two or more times pursuant to Article 41 (Order to Amend) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.” In this case, after the employee filed an application for remedy on October 20, 2025, this Commission ordered the employee to amend the relief sought and the grounds for the application on three separate occasions up to the single-commissioner hearing on November 27, 2025. Text messages requesting such amendment were also sent to the contact information stated in the application for remedy. Nevertheless, the employee did not respond at all. The Commission therefore determined that the employee no longer had any intention to pursue the application for remedy, and accordingly rejected the application. /
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decision Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice to Spouse)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window at the following link: “Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice to Spouse)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1).”
※ The list of decision precedents relating to rejection for failure to comply with an order to amend can be viewed together at the following link: “List of Decision Precedents on Rejection for Failure to Comply with Amendment Order.”
