Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Proof of the Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice by Employer’s Spouse) (Unfair Dismissal 32)
- Date2026/01/03 16:08
- Read 193
[Case Information]
- Case number: Dismissed
- Date of decision:
- Decision-making body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae766 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
November 27, 2025
- Holding: In light of the following circumstances—there are no facts supporting the worker’s assertions; no specific and objective grounds or evidence have been presented from which it can be found that the employer dismissed the worker; there are circumstances showing that the employer requested the worker to continue working for a certain period; the worker left the workplace after expressing that it was difficult to provide work due to health reasons; and, viewed in light of the content of the message the worker sent to the employer on August 15, 2025, the worker’s claim that he/she received a unilateral (oral) dismissal notice from the employer’s spouse is difficult to reconcile with that content—it is determined that no dismissal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, which are premised on the existence of a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
[Outline of the Case]
In this unfair dismissal case, the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that he/she had received a unilateral oral dismissal notice from the employer’s spouse. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether a dismissal existed, taking into account, among other things, that the employer in fact requested the worker to continue working for a certain period and that the worker left the workplace on his/her own after stating that he/she could not continue working due to health reasons. Ultimately, the Commission ruled in favor of the employer on the ground that there was no objective evidence supporting the worker’s assertions. This decision is a case handled by Labor Law Firm Law& that clearly illustrates the importance of proving the “existence of dismissal” in unfair dismissal and redundancy disputes.
[Summary of Issues]
The key issue in this case is whether “it can be deemed that the employer dismissed the worker solely on the basis of what the employer’s spouse said, without any separate written notice, and, further, how the worker must prove the very existence of the dismissal.”
[Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning]
The panel in this case found that, given that the employer did not submit any specific and objective materials from which it could be concluded that the employer dismissed the worker; that there are circumstances showing that the employer instead requested the worker to continue working for a certain period; that the worker left the workplace on his/her own after expressing that it was difficult to provide work due to health problems; and that, in light of the content of the message the worker later sent on August 15, 2025, the claim of a “unilateral oral dismissal notice by the spouse” does not accord with that content,
the panel determined that, in substance, no dismissal existed in this case.
Accordingly, the Labor Relations Commission completely rejected the premise that a dismissal had occurred, and held that there was no further need to examine the remaining issues such as the just cause for dismissal, procedural violations, or whether there had been a violation of the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Proceeding from the premise that, under the Labor Standards Act, dismissal is a “unilateral expression by the employer of intent to terminate the employment contract,” the Commission concluded that, in this case, such an expression of intent could not be objectively confirmed.
[Practical Points – From the Worker’s Perspective]
To assert unfair dismissal, a worker should, as promptly as possible, preserve evidence of “who, when, using what words, and under what circumstances” communicated the dismissal, by means such as text messages, messenger apps, recordings, or written notes. In particular, if the worker feels that he/she has been orally dismissed, it is very important for proving the existence of dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission to immediately reconfirm in writing or via messenger with wording such as, “I would like to confirm the dismissal notice you just mentioned.”
In addition, if the worker has first expressed an intention to quit due to health issues or personal reasons, subsequent departure from the workplace or prolonged absence may be interpreted not as dismissal but in effect as voluntary resignation or refusal to provide work. Before leaving the workplace, the worker should clearly record whether he/she intends to return, and whether he/she is requesting sick leave or a leave of absence.
[Practical Points – From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective]
From the employer’s standpoint, if the reason for termination of the employment relationship is not dismissal, it is important to secure materials that can prove, on an ongoing basis, “the circumstances in which continued employment was requested” and “the worker’s voluntary departure or intention to resign.” In particular, in family-run businesses where a spouse or family member may strongly reprimand a worker or say something to the effect of “you should quit,” if it is not clearly documented that such statements do not reflect the actual intent of the person with authority over personnel decisions, unnecessary unfair dismissal disputes may arise.
Conversely, when actually dismissing a worker, the employer must provide written notice of the reason and effective date of dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and should strictly avoid the practice of ambiguously ending the relationship through oral communication alone. If the employer wishes to maintain that the termination was not a dismissal but a mutual termination or resignation, it is very helpful for preventing disputes to retain explicit statements of the worker’s intent, such as a resignation letter or a written agreement.
[Explanation of Terms]
1) Dismissal
Dismissal refers to any measure by which the employer unilaterally terminates the employment contract, regardless of the terminology used in the workplace and irrespective of the worker’s will. Even if the form differs—such as disciplinary dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or unilateral notice following a recommendation to resign—if in substance it constitutes a “unilateral expression by the employer of intent to terminate,” it may fall within the scope of dismissal.
2) Existence of Dismissal
“Existence of dismissal” refers to whether a dismissal actually occurred, and is both the most basic and the most critical issue in unfair dismissal cases. The Labor Relations Commission will only proceed to the next stage—examining the just cause for dismissal, procedural violations, etc.—if it first recognizes that a dismissal exists. If the existence of dismissal is denied, the application may be dismissed without examining the subsequent issues.
3) Written Notice of Reasons for Dismissal, etc. (Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act)
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, when an employer intends to dismiss a worker, the employer must notify the worker in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the effective date of dismissal, and that the dismissal does not take effect if written notice is not given. This is designed to ensure that employers make dismissal decisions prudently and to clarify the timing and reasons for dismissal in the event of a later dispute. In practice, one must always bear in mind that “it is difficult for dismissal to be valid based on oral notice alone.”
2. Matters Decided
A. Outline of the Case and Procedural History
In light of the following circumstances—there are no facts supporting the worker’s assertions; no specific and objective grounds or evidence have been presented from which it can be found that the employer dismissed the worker; there are circumstances showing that the employer requested the worker to continue working for a certain period; the worker left the workplace after expressing that it was difficult to provide work due to health reasons; and, viewed in light of the content of the message the worker sent to the employer on August 15, 2025, the worker’s claim that he/she received a unilateral (oral) dismissal notice from the employer’s spouse is difficult to reconcile with that content—it is determined that no dismissal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, which are premised on the existence of a dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the following circumstances—there are no facts supporting the worker’s assertions; no specific and objective grounds or evidence have been presented from which it can be found that the employer dismissed the worker; there are circumstances showing that the employer requested the worker to continue working for a certain period; the worker left the workplace after expressing that it was difficult to provide work due to health reasons; and, viewed in light of the content of the message the worker sent to the employer on August 15, 2025, the worker’s claim that he/she received a unilateral (oral) dismissal notice from the employer’s spouse is difficult to reconcile with that content—it is determined that no dismissal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, which are premised on the existence of a dismissal. /
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Disciplinary Action and Transfer (Concurrent Position · Civil Complaints Department) (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window at the following link: “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Disciplinary Action and Transfer (Concurrent Position · Civil Complaints Department) (Unfair Dismissal 1).”
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to proof of the existence of dismissal (oral notice by spouse) at the following link: “List of Decisions Related to Proof of the Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice by Spouse).”
- Case number: Dismissed
- Date of decision:
- Decision-making body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae766 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
November 27, 2025
- Holding: In light of the following circumstances—there are no facts supporting the worker’s assertions; no specific and objective grounds or evidence have been presented from which it can be found that the employer dismissed the worker; there are circumstances showing that the employer requested the worker to continue working for a certain period; the worker left the workplace after expressing that it was difficult to provide work due to health reasons; and, viewed in light of the content of the message the worker sent to the employer on August 15, 2025, the worker’s claim that he/she received a unilateral (oral) dismissal notice from the employer’s spouse is difficult to reconcile with that content—it is determined that no dismissal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, which are premised on the existence of a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
[Outline of the Case]
In this unfair dismissal case, the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that he/she had received a unilateral oral dismissal notice from the employer’s spouse. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether a dismissal existed, taking into account, among other things, that the employer in fact requested the worker to continue working for a certain period and that the worker left the workplace on his/her own after stating that he/she could not continue working due to health reasons. Ultimately, the Commission ruled in favor of the employer on the ground that there was no objective evidence supporting the worker’s assertions. This decision is a case handled by Labor Law Firm Law& that clearly illustrates the importance of proving the “existence of dismissal” in unfair dismissal and redundancy disputes.
[Summary of Issues]
The key issue in this case is whether “it can be deemed that the employer dismissed the worker solely on the basis of what the employer’s spouse said, without any separate written notice, and, further, how the worker must prove the very existence of the dismissal.”
[Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning]
The panel in this case found that, given that the employer did not submit any specific and objective materials from which it could be concluded that the employer dismissed the worker; that there are circumstances showing that the employer instead requested the worker to continue working for a certain period; that the worker left the workplace on his/her own after expressing that it was difficult to provide work due to health problems; and that, in light of the content of the message the worker later sent on August 15, 2025, the claim of a “unilateral oral dismissal notice by the spouse” does not accord with that content,
the panel determined that, in substance, no dismissal existed in this case.
Accordingly, the Labor Relations Commission completely rejected the premise that a dismissal had occurred, and held that there was no further need to examine the remaining issues such as the just cause for dismissal, procedural violations, or whether there had been a violation of the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Proceeding from the premise that, under the Labor Standards Act, dismissal is a “unilateral expression by the employer of intent to terminate the employment contract,” the Commission concluded that, in this case, such an expression of intent could not be objectively confirmed.
[Practical Points – From the Worker’s Perspective]
To assert unfair dismissal, a worker should, as promptly as possible, preserve evidence of “who, when, using what words, and under what circumstances” communicated the dismissal, by means such as text messages, messenger apps, recordings, or written notes. In particular, if the worker feels that he/she has been orally dismissed, it is very important for proving the existence of dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission to immediately reconfirm in writing or via messenger with wording such as, “I would like to confirm the dismissal notice you just mentioned.”
In addition, if the worker has first expressed an intention to quit due to health issues or personal reasons, subsequent departure from the workplace or prolonged absence may be interpreted not as dismissal but in effect as voluntary resignation or refusal to provide work. Before leaving the workplace, the worker should clearly record whether he/she intends to return, and whether he/she is requesting sick leave or a leave of absence.
[Practical Points – From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective]
From the employer’s standpoint, if the reason for termination of the employment relationship is not dismissal, it is important to secure materials that can prove, on an ongoing basis, “the circumstances in which continued employment was requested” and “the worker’s voluntary departure or intention to resign.” In particular, in family-run businesses where a spouse or family member may strongly reprimand a worker or say something to the effect of “you should quit,” if it is not clearly documented that such statements do not reflect the actual intent of the person with authority over personnel decisions, unnecessary unfair dismissal disputes may arise.
Conversely, when actually dismissing a worker, the employer must provide written notice of the reason and effective date of dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and should strictly avoid the practice of ambiguously ending the relationship through oral communication alone. If the employer wishes to maintain that the termination was not a dismissal but a mutual termination or resignation, it is very helpful for preventing disputes to retain explicit statements of the worker’s intent, such as a resignation letter or a written agreement.
[Explanation of Terms]
1) Dismissal
Dismissal refers to any measure by which the employer unilaterally terminates the employment contract, regardless of the terminology used in the workplace and irrespective of the worker’s will. Even if the form differs—such as disciplinary dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or unilateral notice following a recommendation to resign—if in substance it constitutes a “unilateral expression by the employer of intent to terminate,” it may fall within the scope of dismissal.
2) Existence of Dismissal
“Existence of dismissal” refers to whether a dismissal actually occurred, and is both the most basic and the most critical issue in unfair dismissal cases. The Labor Relations Commission will only proceed to the next stage—examining the just cause for dismissal, procedural violations, etc.—if it first recognizes that a dismissal exists. If the existence of dismissal is denied, the application may be dismissed without examining the subsequent issues.
3) Written Notice of Reasons for Dismissal, etc. (Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act)
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that, when an employer intends to dismiss a worker, the employer must notify the worker in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the effective date of dismissal, and that the dismissal does not take effect if written notice is not given. This is designed to ensure that employers make dismissal decisions prudently and to clarify the timing and reasons for dismissal in the event of a later dispute. In practice, one must always bear in mind that “it is difficult for dismissal to be valid based on oral notice alone.”
2. Matters Decided
A. Outline of the Case and Procedural History
In light of the following circumstances—there are no facts supporting the worker’s assertions; no specific and objective grounds or evidence have been presented from which it can be found that the employer dismissed the worker; there are circumstances showing that the employer requested the worker to continue working for a certain period; the worker left the workplace after expressing that it was difficult to provide work due to health reasons; and, viewed in light of the content of the message the worker sent to the employer on August 15, 2025, the worker’s claim that he/she received a unilateral (oral) dismissal notice from the employer’s spouse is difficult to reconcile with that content—it is determined that no dismissal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, which are premised on the existence of a dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the following circumstances—there are no facts supporting the worker’s assertions; no specific and objective grounds or evidence have been presented from which it can be found that the employer dismissed the worker; there are circumstances showing that the employer requested the worker to continue working for a certain period; the worker left the workplace after expressing that it was difficult to provide work due to health reasons; and, viewed in light of the content of the message the worker sent to the employer on August 15, 2025, the worker’s claim that he/she received a unilateral (oral) dismissal notice from the employer’s spouse is difficult to reconcile with that content—it is determined that no dismissal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, which are premised on the existence of a dismissal. /
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Law” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Disciplinary Action and Transfer (Concurrent Position · Civil Complaints Department) (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window at the following link: “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning Disciplinary Action and Transfer (Concurrent Position · Civil Complaints Department) (Unfair Dismissal 1).”
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to proof of the existence of dismissal (oral notice by spouse) at the following link: “List of Decisions Related to Proof of the Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice by Spouse).”
