Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Dismissed for Lapse of Exclusion Period (Application Filed After 3 Months) (Unfair Dismissal 528)
- Date2026/07/07 04:10
- Read 37
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “lapse of the exclusion period (application filed after 3 months).”
Decision Committee: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae153 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-02 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy on 10 April 2026, after more than three months had elapsed from the date of the original disposition (17 December 2025), which is the starting date for calculating the application period. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application fell under a “case where the application was filed after the period prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations” under Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission (Decision), and therefore dismissed the case.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed that the employer’s dismissal was an unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, but the timing of the application was at issue. The employee received notice of dismissal (the original disposition) on 17 December 2025, but did not file the application for remedy for unfair dismissal until 10 April 2026, approximately four months later. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a dismissal decision based on Article 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of the Issue
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee claiming unfair dismissal files an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission more than three months after the date of dismissal, the application may be dismissed on the ground that the application period has lapsed.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the starting date for calculating the application period was the date of the original dismissal disposition, 17 December 2025; that the employee actually filed the application for remedy on 10 April 2026, clearly exceeding the three‑month exclusion period prescribed in Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 40 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission; and that Article 60(1)1 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides that where “the application was filed after the period prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations,” the case shall be dismissed without a decision on the merits.
Accordingly, without examining whether the dismissal in this case was justified, the panel held that it was appropriate to dismiss the application for remedy for unfair dismissal as having been filed after the application period, pursuant to Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee wishes to challenge a dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or other disadvantageous personnel measure, it is essential to remember that, in principle, an application for remedy must be filed with the Labor Relations Commission “within three months from the date of the dismissal or other measure.” This three‑month period is an exclusion period that limits the exercise of the right. Once the period has lapsed, administrative relief through the Labor Relations Commission may become impossible, even with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when taking disadvantageous personnel measures such as dismissal or disciplinary action, it is important to bear in mind that the date and content notified to the employee will serve as the “starting point for calculating the application period” in the event of a dispute. In addition, where an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is filed with the Labor Relations Commission, the employer should first examine whether the application date is more than three months after the dismissal date, and, if it falls under a lapse of the exclusion period, clearly organize and assert an argument for dismissal of the case pursuant to Article 60 of the Rules.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee in this case filed the application for remedy on 10 April 2026, after more than three months had elapsed from the original disposition date (17 December 2025), which is the starting date for calculating the application period. Accordingly, the Commission decided to dismiss the application on the ground that it fell under a “case where the application was filed after the period prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations” under Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission (Decision).
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee in this case filed the application for remedy on 10 April 2026, after more than three months had elapsed from the original disposition date (17 December 2025), which is the starting date for calculating the application period. Accordingly, the Commission decided to dismiss the application on the ground that it fell under a “case where the application was filed after the period prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations” under Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission (Decision). /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Disciplinary Measure (Receipt of Cash KRW 200,000)’”
- “‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Case on Unfair Dismissal” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Dismissed
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, lapse of exclusion period (application filed after 3 months), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Disciplinary Measure (Receipt of Cash KRW 200,000)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to lapse of exclusion period (application filed after 3 months) in the “List of Decisions on Lapse of Exclusion Period (Application Filed After 3 Months).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “lapse of the exclusion period (application filed after 3 months).”
Decision Committee: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae153 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-02 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy on 10 April 2026, after more than three months had elapsed from the date of the original disposition (17 December 2025), which is the starting date for calculating the application period. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application fell under a “case where the application was filed after the period prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations” under Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission (Decision), and therefore dismissed the case.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed that the employer’s dismissal was an unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, but the timing of the application was at issue. The employee received notice of dismissal (the original disposition) on 17 December 2025, but did not file the application for remedy for unfair dismissal until 10 April 2026, approximately four months later. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a dismissal decision based on Article 60 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of the Issue
The issue in this case is whether, where an employee claiming unfair dismissal files an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission more than three months after the date of dismissal, the application may be dismissed on the ground that the application period has lapsed.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the starting date for calculating the application period was the date of the original dismissal disposition, 17 December 2025; that the employee actually filed the application for remedy on 10 April 2026, clearly exceeding the three‑month exclusion period prescribed in Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 40 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission; and that Article 60(1)1 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides that where “the application was filed after the period prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations,” the case shall be dismissed without a decision on the merits.
Accordingly, without examining whether the dismissal in this case was justified, the panel held that it was appropriate to dismiss the application for remedy for unfair dismissal as having been filed after the application period, pursuant to Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee wishes to challenge a dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or other disadvantageous personnel measure, it is essential to remember that, in principle, an application for remedy must be filed with the Labor Relations Commission “within three months from the date of the dismissal or other measure.” This three‑month period is an exclusion period that limits the exercise of the right. Once the period has lapsed, administrative relief through the Labor Relations Commission may become impossible, even with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when taking disadvantageous personnel measures such as dismissal or disciplinary action, it is important to bear in mind that the date and content notified to the employee will serve as the “starting point for calculating the application period” in the event of a dispute. In addition, where an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is filed with the Labor Relations Commission, the employer should first examine whether the application date is more than three months after the dismissal date, and, if it falls under a lapse of the exclusion period, clearly organize and assert an argument for dismissal of the case pursuant to Article 60 of the Rules.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee in this case filed the application for remedy on 10 April 2026, after more than three months had elapsed from the original disposition date (17 December 2025), which is the starting date for calculating the application period. Accordingly, the Commission decided to dismiss the application on the ground that it fell under a “case where the application was filed after the period prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations” under Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission (Decision).
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee in this case filed the application for remedy on 10 April 2026, after more than three months had elapsed from the original disposition date (17 December 2025), which is the starting date for calculating the application period. Accordingly, the Commission decided to dismiss the application on the ground that it fell under a “case where the application was filed after the period prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations” under Article 60(1) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission (Decision). /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Disciplinary Measure (Receipt of Cash KRW 200,000)’”
- “‘Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Case on Unfair Dismissal” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Dismissed
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, lapse of exclusion period (application filed after 3 months), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Disciplinary Measure (Receipt of Cash KRW 200,000)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to lapse of exclusion period (application filed after 3 months) in the “List of Decisions on Lapse of Exclusion Period (Application Filed After 3 Months).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
