Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Mutual Termination)” (Unfair Dismissal 545)
- Date2026/07/15 04:13
- Read 20
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “existence of dismissal (alleged mutual termination).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed on the issue of “existence of dismissal (alleged mutual termination).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae352 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-29 · Outcome: Fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
There is no objective evidence to support that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, and it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will.
---
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the key issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a genuine mutual termination or a unilateral dismissal by the employer, and the Commission also examined whether the statutory requirement of written notice of dismissal had been violated. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, and it clearly illustrates how crucial the existence of a dismissal and compliance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act are, not only in collective redundancy situations but also in ordinary dismissals.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee ceased working for the employer, and the company asserted that this was a termination by mutual agreement or a termination akin to voluntary resignation. The employee, however, claimed that the employment relationship had been unilaterally terminated irrespective of his/her intention, and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal together with an application for a monetary compensation order. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission sequentially examined (i) whether a dismissal existed, (ii) whether the dismissal was justified, and (iii) whether to grant a monetary compensation order.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, at the time of termination of the employment relationship, the mutual termination alleged by the company actually existed and, if not, whether the case constituted an unfair dismissal due to a violation of the obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of dismissal. Furthermore, if a dismissal were to be recognized, the Commission had to determine whether it would be appropriate to issue a monetary compensation order directing payment of wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of decision.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
With respect to the mutual termination alleged by the employer, the decision panel found that there was no objective material indicating that the employee voluntarily agreed to resign; that the termination of the employment relationship appeared to have been effected by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent irrespective of the employee’s will; and that there was no indication whatsoever that written notice stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, had been provided.
Accordingly, the Commission held that this dismissal was procedurally defective in direct violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and was therefore unfair.
In addition, having recognized the dismissal as unfair, the Commission accepted the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and found it appropriate to order the employer to pay 5,062,550 KRW in wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the company says that “we are mutually agreeing to part ways,” if there is no written document clearly indicating your consent or no objective surrounding circumstances evidencing such consent, the termination may be evaluated as a unilateral dismissal. When you are notified of dismissal, you should request written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. If the employment relationship is terminated verbally, by text message, or based only on an oral “agreement” without any written notice, you should promptly consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, whether the reason for termination of the employment relationship is resignation/mutual termination or dismissal is determinative in a dispute. You must therefore retain objective evidence such as a letter of resignation or a written mutual termination agreement. Where dismissal is unavoidable, you must, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice in advance specifying in detail the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. You should bear in mind that attempts to belatedly “cure” procedural defects by later supplementing notice via email or verbal explanations can serve as a direct basis for a finding of unfair dismissal.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
There is no objective evidence to support that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, and it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employee; therefore, the dismissal is unfair.
C. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
It is deemed appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of 5,062,550 KRW in wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether a dismissal exists
There is no objective evidence to support that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, and it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employee; therefore, the dismissal is unfair.
C. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
It is deemed appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of 5,062,550 KRW in wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal for Unauthorised Absence (Probationary Employee’s Failure to Comply with Reinstatement Order)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (alleged mutual termination), 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal for Unauthorised Absence (Probationary Employee’s Failure to Comply with Reinstatement Order),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (alleged mutual termination) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Mutual Termination).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee fully prevailed on the issue of “existence of dismissal (alleged mutual termination).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae352 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-29 · Outcome: Fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
There is no objective evidence to support that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, and it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will.
---
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the key issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the termination of the employment relationship constituted a genuine mutual termination or a unilateral dismissal by the employer, and the Commission also examined whether the statutory requirement of written notice of dismissal had been violated. This is a type of case frequently encountered in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, and it clearly illustrates how crucial the existence of a dismissal and compliance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act are, not only in collective redundancy situations but also in ordinary dismissals.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee ceased working for the employer, and the company asserted that this was a termination by mutual agreement or a termination akin to voluntary resignation. The employee, however, claimed that the employment relationship had been unilaterally terminated irrespective of his/her intention, and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal together with an application for a monetary compensation order. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission sequentially examined (i) whether a dismissal existed, (ii) whether the dismissal was justified, and (iii) whether to grant a monetary compensation order.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, at the time of termination of the employment relationship, the mutual termination alleged by the company actually existed and, if not, whether the case constituted an unfair dismissal due to a violation of the obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice of dismissal. Furthermore, if a dismissal were to be recognized, the Commission had to determine whether it would be appropriate to issue a monetary compensation order directing payment of wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of decision.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
With respect to the mutual termination alleged by the employer, the decision panel found that there was no objective material indicating that the employee voluntarily agreed to resign; that the termination of the employment relationship appeared to have been effected by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent irrespective of the employee’s will; and that there was no indication whatsoever that written notice stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, had been provided.
Accordingly, the Commission held that this dismissal was procedurally defective in direct violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and was therefore unfair.
In addition, having recognized the dismissal as unfair, the Commission accepted the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and found it appropriate to order the employer to pay 5,062,550 KRW in wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the company says that “we are mutually agreeing to part ways,” if there is no written document clearly indicating your consent or no objective surrounding circumstances evidencing such consent, the termination may be evaluated as a unilateral dismissal. When you are notified of dismissal, you should request written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. If the employment relationship is terminated verbally, by text message, or based only on an oral “agreement” without any written notice, you should promptly consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, whether the reason for termination of the employment relationship is resignation/mutual termination or dismissal is determinative in a dispute. You must therefore retain objective evidence such as a letter of resignation or a written mutual termination agreement. Where dismissal is unavoidable, you must, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide written notice in advance specifying in detail the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. You should bear in mind that attempts to belatedly “cure” procedural defects by later supplementing notice via email or verbal explanations can serve as a direct basis for a finding of unfair dismissal.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
There is no objective evidence to support that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, and it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employee; therefore, the dismissal is unfair.
C. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
It is deemed appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of 5,062,550 KRW in wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether a dismissal exists
There is no objective evidence to support that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, and it is determined that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral expression of intent against the employee’s will.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employee; therefore, the dismissal is unfair.
C. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
It is deemed appropriate to accept the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of 5,062,550 KRW in wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal for Unauthorised Absence (Probationary Employee’s Failure to Comply with Reinstatement Order)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (alleged mutual termination), 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal for Unauthorised Absence (Probationary Employee’s Failure to Comply with Reinstatement Order),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (alleged mutual termination) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Mutual Termination).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
