Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Defect in Written Notice (Unilateral Termination Before Expiry of Fixed Term)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 543)
- Date2026/07/14 04:18
- Read 22
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “defect in written notice (unilateral termination before expiry of fixed term).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae341 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-29 · Result: Fully upheld
Summary of key issue:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where, before the expiry of the fixed term of the employment contract, the employment relationship is terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will, such termination constitutes a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
This unfair dismissal case was contested before the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, which held the dismissal invalid on the ground of violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and further issued an order for monetary compensation. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, and can be regarded as a typical unfair dismissal where the employer unilaterally sends away an employee whose fixed-term contract has not yet expired, without complying with the formal written notice procedure.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee had entered into a fixed-term employment contract and was working under that contract when, while the contract period still remained, the company unilaterally notified the employee that the employment relationship was terminated. The employer did not issue any separate written notice of dismissal, but in effect ended the employment relationship by no longer allowing the employee to report to work. In response, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal together with an application for an order of monetary compensation.
The Labor Relations Commission recognized the existence of a dismissal on the ground that the employment relationship had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent even though the fixed term of the employment contract had not expired. Furthermore, citing procedural violations such as the failure to provide written notice of dismissal, it held the dismissal to be unfair, and upheld the application for an order of monetary compensation, ordering payment of KRW 4,050,000 in wages in lieu of work from the date of dismissal to the date of suspension of construction.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employer, in respect of a fixed-term employee whose contract period has not yet expired, unilaterally expresses the intention to terminate the employment relationship without providing written notice of the reasons for and timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, (i) whether a dismissal exists, and (ii) whether such dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employment relationship had been terminated prior to the expiry of the fixed term of the employment contract by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent; that the provision of labor had been discontinued against the employee’s will; and that the termination did not take the form of automatic extinction or mutual agreement such as expiry of the contract term, resignation, or termination by agreement.
In light of these circumstances, it held that the termination of the employment relationship constituted a unilateral act on the part of the employer, independent of the employee’s will, and therefore amounted to a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act.
In addition, it relied on the facts that the employer, in sending the employee away, did not provide a written document stating the reasons for and timing of the dismissal; that Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act is a formal requirement provision that demands written notice as a condition for the effectiveness of a dismissal; and that, if the reasons and timing of dismissal are not recorded in writing, it becomes difficult to resolve disputes over the existence, timing, and reasons for the dismissal, thereby seriously infringing the employee’s right of defense.
On this basis, it held that the dismissal in this case was in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, was therefore null and void, and accordingly constituted an unfair dismissal.
The Labor Relations Commission further held that, since the dismissal was void, the employment contract relationship must be deemed to have continued, and under the general legal principle that wages in lieu of work must be paid for periods during which the employee was unable to provide labor due to reasons attributable to the employer, it was appropriate to order payment of KRW 4,050,000 in wages in lieu of work from the date of dismissal to the date of suspension of construction, and therefore fully upheld the employee’s application for an order of monetary compensation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even where the employer effectively prevents attendance at work by saying things like “the contract is terminated,” “don’t come in anymore,” or “there is no more work for you,” if the contract period still remains and the employee has not expressed an intention to resign, it is essential to examine whether a dismissal has occurred.
In particular, if you have not received any written document stating the reasons for and timing of dismissal, such as a notice of dismissal or a personnel order, you may allege unfair dismissal on the ground of violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. You should therefore secure as much evidence as possible of the employer’s unilateral intention to terminate—such as text messages, KakaoTalk messages, recordings, or instructions refusing attendance—and promptly file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
In the case of fixed-term employees, it is not uncommon for employers to attempt early termination on the grounds of “suspension of construction” or “site circumstances.” You should carefully review the contract period stated in the employment contract, the grounds for termination of the contract, and the method of notice of dismissal, and distinguish whether the situation involves expiry of the contract term, a redundancy dismissal, or an ordinary dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when terminating an employment relationship—particularly where seeking to terminate a fixed-term employee’s contract before the expiry of the term—you must not rely solely on labels such as “resignation” or “termination by agreement” and handle the matter orally. You must clearly distinguish whether the cause of termination lies in the employee’s intention or in the employer’s unilateral intention, and record this in writing.
If you intend to dismiss an employee, you must, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide in advance a written document specifically stating the reasons for and timing of the dismissal. Even when giving notice by electronic means such as email or messenger, you should verify in advance whether your method satisfies the “written” requirement as interpreted by the courts and is compatible with the level of your company’s electronic document system.
Furthermore, where workforce reductions are necessary for managerial reasons such as suspension of construction or completion of a project, rather than simply treating the matter as “the contract has ended,” it is essential for dispute prevention to consult with HR and labor experts and design a restructuring scenario and dismissal procedures after reviewing, among other things, whether the requirements for redundancy dismissal are met, whether ordinary dismissal is possible, and whether alternative measures such as reassignment or temporary shutdown have been considered.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where, before the expiry of the fixed term of the employment contract, the employment relationship is terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will, such termination constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer violated the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employee; therefore, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Whether to accept the application for an order of monetary compensation
It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for an order of monetary compensation and order payment of KRW 4,050,000 in wages in lieu of work from the date of dismissal to the date of suspension of construction.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where, before the expiry of the fixed term of the employment contract, the employment relationship is terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will, such termination constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer violated the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employee; therefore, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Whether to accept the application for an order of monetary compensation
It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for an order of monetary compensation and order payment of KRW 4,050,000 in wages in lieu of work from the date of dismissal to the date of suspension of construction. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Voluntary Resignation (Forced Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Disabled Veteran Employee)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (unilateral termination before expiry of fixed term), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Voluntary Resignation (Forced Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to defect in written notice (unilateral termination before expiry of fixed term) can be viewed together in the “Defect in Written Notice (Unilateral Termination Before Expiry of Fixed Term) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “defect in written notice (unilateral termination before expiry of fixed term).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae341 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-29 · Result: Fully upheld
Summary of key issue:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where, before the expiry of the fixed term of the employment contract, the employment relationship is terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will, such termination constitutes a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
This unfair dismissal case was contested before the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, which held the dismissal invalid on the ground of violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and further issued an order for monetary compensation. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, and can be regarded as a typical unfair dismissal where the employer unilaterally sends away an employee whose fixed-term contract has not yet expired, without complying with the formal written notice procedure.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee had entered into a fixed-term employment contract and was working under that contract when, while the contract period still remained, the company unilaterally notified the employee that the employment relationship was terminated. The employer did not issue any separate written notice of dismissal, but in effect ended the employment relationship by no longer allowing the employee to report to work. In response, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal together with an application for an order of monetary compensation.
The Labor Relations Commission recognized the existence of a dismissal on the ground that the employment relationship had been terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent even though the fixed term of the employment contract had not expired. Furthermore, citing procedural violations such as the failure to provide written notice of dismissal, it held the dismissal to be unfair, and upheld the application for an order of monetary compensation, ordering payment of KRW 4,050,000 in wages in lieu of work from the date of dismissal to the date of suspension of construction.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employer, in respect of a fixed-term employee whose contract period has not yet expired, unilaterally expresses the intention to terminate the employment relationship without providing written notice of the reasons for and timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, (i) whether a dismissal exists, and (ii) whether such dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employment relationship had been terminated prior to the expiry of the fixed term of the employment contract by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent; that the provision of labor had been discontinued against the employee’s will; and that the termination did not take the form of automatic extinction or mutual agreement such as expiry of the contract term, resignation, or termination by agreement.
In light of these circumstances, it held that the termination of the employment relationship constituted a unilateral act on the part of the employer, independent of the employee’s will, and therefore amounted to a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act.
In addition, it relied on the facts that the employer, in sending the employee away, did not provide a written document stating the reasons for and timing of the dismissal; that Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act is a formal requirement provision that demands written notice as a condition for the effectiveness of a dismissal; and that, if the reasons and timing of dismissal are not recorded in writing, it becomes difficult to resolve disputes over the existence, timing, and reasons for the dismissal, thereby seriously infringing the employee’s right of defense.
On this basis, it held that the dismissal in this case was in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, was therefore null and void, and accordingly constituted an unfair dismissal.
The Labor Relations Commission further held that, since the dismissal was void, the employment contract relationship must be deemed to have continued, and under the general legal principle that wages in lieu of work must be paid for periods during which the employee was unable to provide labor due to reasons attributable to the employer, it was appropriate to order payment of KRW 4,050,000 in wages in lieu of work from the date of dismissal to the date of suspension of construction, and therefore fully upheld the employee’s application for an order of monetary compensation.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even where the employer effectively prevents attendance at work by saying things like “the contract is terminated,” “don’t come in anymore,” or “there is no more work for you,” if the contract period still remains and the employee has not expressed an intention to resign, it is essential to examine whether a dismissal has occurred.
In particular, if you have not received any written document stating the reasons for and timing of dismissal, such as a notice of dismissal or a personnel order, you may allege unfair dismissal on the ground of violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. You should therefore secure as much evidence as possible of the employer’s unilateral intention to terminate—such as text messages, KakaoTalk messages, recordings, or instructions refusing attendance—and promptly file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
In the case of fixed-term employees, it is not uncommon for employers to attempt early termination on the grounds of “suspension of construction” or “site circumstances.” You should carefully review the contract period stated in the employment contract, the grounds for termination of the contract, and the method of notice of dismissal, and distinguish whether the situation involves expiry of the contract term, a redundancy dismissal, or an ordinary dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when terminating an employment relationship—particularly where seeking to terminate a fixed-term employee’s contract before the expiry of the term—you must not rely solely on labels such as “resignation” or “termination by agreement” and handle the matter orally. You must clearly distinguish whether the cause of termination lies in the employee’s intention or in the employer’s unilateral intention, and record this in writing.
If you intend to dismiss an employee, you must, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide in advance a written document specifically stating the reasons for and timing of the dismissal. Even when giving notice by electronic means such as email or messenger, you should verify in advance whether your method satisfies the “written” requirement as interpreted by the courts and is compatible with the level of your company’s electronic document system.
Furthermore, where workforce reductions are necessary for managerial reasons such as suspension of construction or completion of a project, rather than simply treating the matter as “the contract has ended,” it is essential for dispute prevention to consult with HR and labor experts and design a restructuring scenario and dismissal procedures after reviewing, among other things, whether the requirements for redundancy dismissal are met, whether ordinary dismissal is possible, and whether alternative measures such as reassignment or temporary shutdown have been considered.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where, before the expiry of the fixed term of the employment contract, the employment relationship is terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will, such termination constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer violated the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employee; therefore, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Whether to accept the application for an order of monetary compensation
It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for an order of monetary compensation and order payment of KRW 4,050,000 in wages in lieu of work from the date of dismissal to the date of suspension of construction.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal exists
Where, before the expiry of the fixed term of the employment contract, the employment relationship is terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will, such termination constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer violated the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employee; therefore, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Whether to accept the application for an order of monetary compensation
It is appropriate to accept the employee’s application for an order of monetary compensation and order payment of KRW 4,050,000 in wages in lieu of work from the date of dismissal to the date of suspension of construction. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Voluntary Resignation (Forced Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Disabled Veteran Employee)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (unilateral termination before expiry of fixed term), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Voluntary Resignation (Forced Resignation Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to defect in written notice (unilateral termination before expiry of fixed term) can be viewed together in the “Defect in Written Notice (Unilateral Termination Before Expiry of Fixed Term) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
