Corporate trends / Performance record
Case Precedent on “Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances)” in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 38)
- Date2026/01/03 21:44
- Read 213
[Case Information]
- Case title: Case Precedent on “Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances)” in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 1)
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae858 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.26
- Summary of outcome: Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal actually exists must first be proven, and the burden of proof regarding the existence of a dismissal lies with the employees. However, apart from the employees’ assertions, no specific material was submitted or confirmed that would support a finding that the employer dismissed the employees as of 1 August 2025, and therefore …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employees claimed that the employer dismissed them as of 1 August 2025 and filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. However, as in many of the cases on which Labor Law Firm Law& advises, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined strictly whether the existence of a dismissal itself had been proven, and concluded that no objective material could be found from the employer that would support recognition of a dismissal.
Although the employees alleged unfair dismissal, the key issue became whether there existed any concrete dismissal measures such as written notice of dismissal or a report of loss of insured status under the four major social insurance schemes.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “whether the dismissal alleged by the employees as of 1 August 2025 actually existed, that is, whether the employees could prove that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship.”
Before determining whether the dismissal was unfair, the Commission first had to confirm whether there was a “dismissal” that could be the subject of protection. In this context, the question arose as to whether the existence of a dismissal could be recognized based solely on oral assertions.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case comprehensively considered the following: that dismissal is an act by which the employer, unilaterally and against the employee’s will, terminates the employment relationship, and its existence must first be clearly proven; that, in principle, the burden of proof regarding the existence of a dismissal lies with the employee; and that, apart from the employees’ assertions, no specific material such as written notice, personnel documents, or a report of loss of insured status under the four major social insurance schemes was submitted or confirmed that would support a finding that the employer notified dismissal or took measures to terminate the employment relationship as of 1 August 2025.
As a result, the Commission held that no dismissal existed in this case and therefore dismissed the employees’ application for remedy without further examination of whether the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, in order to contest an unfair dismissal, it is of paramount importance first to secure evidence that can prove that “a dismissal actually occurred.” Employees should collect as early as possible any materials that objectively reveal the employer’s intention to terminate the employment relationship, such as a dismissal notice, personnel appointment documents, text messages or emails, and records of reports of loss of insured status under the four major social insurance schemes.
In particular, even where the employer has not provided written notice, employees should systematically organize circumstantial evidence such as recordings of oral dismissal notifications, the content of messages exchanged immediately thereafter, denial of access control, and the circumstances of salary suspension. Doing so will significantly increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the existence of a dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in situations where an employee may allege unfair dismissal even though no actual dismissal has taken place, it is important to keep clear records of the reasons and circumstances leading to the termination of the employment relationship. If documents such as a resignation letter, agreement for mutual termination, or notice of expiration of a fixed-term contract are in place, they will be of great assistance in proving that there was no dismissal.
Conversely, where an actual dismissal is carried out, such as a redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal, the employer should, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, and consistently implement follow-up measures such as reporting loss of insured status under the four major social insurance schemes. This will help minimize future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission regarding the existence and fairness of the dismissal.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal exists must first be proven, and the burden of proof regarding the existence of a dismissal lies with the employees. However, apart from the employees’ assertions, no specific material was submitted or confirmed that would support a finding that the employer dismissed the employees as of 1 August 2025, and therefore it is determined that no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal exists must first be proven, and the burden of proof regarding the existence of a dismissal lies with the employees. However, apart from the employees’ assertions, no specific material was submitted or confirmed that would support a finding that the employer dismissed the employees as of 1 August 2025, and therefore it is determined that no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case Precedent on ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice to Spouse)’ in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Decision-making body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae766 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
- “Case Precedent on ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Comply with Order to Amend)’ in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Decision-making body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9045 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
- “Case Precedent on ‘Mutual Termination (112 Report · Recommendation to Resign)’ in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 1)”
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case Precedent on ‘Mutual Termination (112 Report · Recommendation to Resign)’ in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window.
※ The list of case precedents related to Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances) can be viewed together at “List of Case Precedents Related to Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances).”
[When You Need to Consult an Expert]
If you require further strategic review in relation to unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or disciplinary/dismissal procedures, you will need professional advice based on the specific facts and evidence of your case.
Labor Law Firm Law& draws on extensive experience in handling unfair dismissal and Labor Relations Commission cases to assist you from issue identification and evidence strategy through to the design of settlement and litigation procedures.
If you would like a detailed consultation, please feel free to contact us via the “Consultation and Quote Request” menu at the top of our website.
- Case title: Case Precedent on “Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances)” in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 1)
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae858 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.26
- Summary of outcome: Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal actually exists must first be proven, and the burden of proof regarding the existence of a dismissal lies with the employees. However, apart from the employees’ assertions, no specific material was submitted or confirmed that would support a finding that the employer dismissed the employees as of 1 August 2025, and therefore …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employees claimed that the employer dismissed them as of 1 August 2025 and filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. However, as in many of the cases on which Labor Law Firm Law& advises, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined strictly whether the existence of a dismissal itself had been proven, and concluded that no objective material could be found from the employer that would support recognition of a dismissal.
Although the employees alleged unfair dismissal, the key issue became whether there existed any concrete dismissal measures such as written notice of dismissal or a report of loss of insured status under the four major social insurance schemes.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “whether the dismissal alleged by the employees as of 1 August 2025 actually existed, that is, whether the employees could prove that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship.”
Before determining whether the dismissal was unfair, the Commission first had to confirm whether there was a “dismissal” that could be the subject of protection. In this context, the question arose as to whether the existence of a dismissal could be recognized based solely on oral assertions.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case comprehensively considered the following: that dismissal is an act by which the employer, unilaterally and against the employee’s will, terminates the employment relationship, and its existence must first be clearly proven; that, in principle, the burden of proof regarding the existence of a dismissal lies with the employee; and that, apart from the employees’ assertions, no specific material such as written notice, personnel documents, or a report of loss of insured status under the four major social insurance schemes was submitted or confirmed that would support a finding that the employer notified dismissal or took measures to terminate the employment relationship as of 1 August 2025.
As a result, the Commission held that no dismissal existed in this case and therefore dismissed the employees’ application for remedy without further examination of whether the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, in order to contest an unfair dismissal, it is of paramount importance first to secure evidence that can prove that “a dismissal actually occurred.” Employees should collect as early as possible any materials that objectively reveal the employer’s intention to terminate the employment relationship, such as a dismissal notice, personnel appointment documents, text messages or emails, and records of reports of loss of insured status under the four major social insurance schemes.
In particular, even where the employer has not provided written notice, employees should systematically organize circumstantial evidence such as recordings of oral dismissal notifications, the content of messages exchanged immediately thereafter, denial of access control, and the circumstances of salary suspension. Doing so will significantly increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the existence of a dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in situations where an employee may allege unfair dismissal even though no actual dismissal has taken place, it is important to keep clear records of the reasons and circumstances leading to the termination of the employment relationship. If documents such as a resignation letter, agreement for mutual termination, or notice of expiration of a fixed-term contract are in place, they will be of great assistance in proving that there was no dismissal.
Conversely, where an actual dismissal is carried out, such as a redundancy dismissal or disciplinary dismissal, the employer should, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, and consistently implement follow-up measures such as reporting loss of insured status under the four major social insurance schemes. This will help minimize future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission regarding the existence and fairness of the dismissal.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal exists must first be proven, and the burden of proof regarding the existence of a dismissal lies with the employees. However, apart from the employees’ assertions, no specific material was submitted or confirmed that would support a finding that the employer dismissed the employees as of 1 August 2025, and therefore it is determined that no dismissal exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Before disputing the unfairness of a dismissal, the fact that a dismissal exists must first be proven, and the burden of proof regarding the existence of a dismissal lies with the employees. However, apart from the employees’ assertions, no specific material was submitted or confirmed that would support a finding that the employer dismissed the employees as of 1 August 2025, and therefore it is determined that no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case Precedent on ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice to Spouse)’ in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Decision-making body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae766 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
- “Case Precedent on ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Comply with Order to Amend)’ in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Decision-making body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9045 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
- “Case Precedent on ‘Mutual Termination (112 Report · Recommendation to Resign)’ in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 1)”
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Case Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case Precedent on ‘Mutual Termination (112 Report · Recommendation to Resign)’ in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window.
※ The list of case precedents related to Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances) can be viewed together at “List of Case Precedents Related to Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances).”
[When You Need to Consult an Expert]
If you require further strategic review in relation to unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or disciplinary/dismissal procedures, you will need professional advice based on the specific facts and evidence of your case.
Labor Law Firm Law& draws on extensive experience in handling unfair dismissal and Labor Relations Commission cases to assist you from issue identification and evidence strategy through to the design of settlement and litigation procedures.
If you would like a detailed consultation, please feel free to contact us via the “Consultation and Quote Request” menu at the top of our website.
