Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on the Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice) (Unfair Dismissal 550)
- Date2026/07/17 04:13
- Read 23
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (oral notice).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해788 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee claimed that the team leader orally notified him of dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow.” However, as no concrete evidence was submitted to prove the existence of a dismissal—namely, that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will—the Commission held that no dismissal had occurred.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the team leader had orally notified him of dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow.” After reviewing the statements and materials submitted, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission found that it had not been proven that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will, and therefore dismissed the employee’s application.
In this case, the key issue was not so much whether the dismissal was unfair, but rather whether the precondition of “the existence of a dismissal” was satisfied in the first place. This decision illustrates how the Labor Relations Commission determines the existence or non-existence of a dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a superior’s statement at the workplace—“Do not come in from tomorrow”—by itself is sufficient to find that a dismissal exists, in the sense that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that there was no objective evidence that the employer had actually restricted the employee’s attendance at work or taken follow-up measures premised on the termination of the employment relationship, such as personnel actions, adjustments to personnel records, or reporting loss of coverage under the four major social insurances. It also pointed out that there was a lack of consistent and credible proof regarding the specific circumstances, context, and subsequent developments of the alleged oral dismissal notice claimed by the employee, and that no supplementary evidence had been submitted to support the existence of a dismissal, such as a written dismissal notice, text messages or messenger records, or audio recordings.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal at issue did not exist, and that it was appropriate to dismiss the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal should bear in mind that they must first prove the very existence of a dismissal—that is, that the employer unilaterally severed the employment relationship. Vague, reprimand-like remarks by a superior may be insufficient. It is therefore important to secure, as promptly as possible, objective evidence such as circumstances showing that the employee was actually barred from coming to work, personnel or social insurance processing premised on dismissal, text messages, KakaoTalk messages, emails, or audio recordings.
It is also helpful, for purposes of enhancing the credibility of one’s testimony before the Labor Relations Commission, to organize in the form of notes or a diary who (team leader, representative, etc.) notified the employee, when, using what specific expressions, and how subsequent events unfolded in terms of attendance, wage payment, and exclusion from work.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, particular caution is required because, even where there is no actual intention to dismiss, emotional expressions such as “Just quit” or “Don’t come in from tomorrow” may later be alleged by the employee to constitute a dismissal. If the remark is a reprimand unrelated to the exercise of personnel authority, expressions should be chosen carefully. Where a decision is made to terminate the employment relationship through disciplinary dismissal, redundancy dismissal, etc., it is necessary to provide written notice pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and to clearly state and retain the reasons and effective date of dismissal.
In situations where an employee alleges unfair dismissal, the employer should systematically organize materials that can explain that, in reality, there was no restriction on attendance and that the employment relationship continued—for example, in terms of wage payment, allocation of working hours, and work instructions—so as to reduce unnecessary disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
In this type of case, it is highly beneficial for both employees and employers to have an accurate understanding of the structure of the burden of proof and methods of proving the existence or non-existence of dismissal, and to organize the facts from the early stages with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. This greatly aids in both preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
This is a case in which the employee claimed that the team leader had orally notified him of dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” but the Commission held that no dismissal had occurred because no concrete evidence was submitted to prove the existence of a dismissal—namely, that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
This is a case in which the employee claimed that the team leader had orally notified him of dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” but the Commission held that no dismissal had occurred because no concrete evidence was submitted to prove the existence of a dismissal—namely, that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Refusal to Return to Original Position After Notice of Reinstatement)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Original decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (oral notice), 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Refusal to Return to Original Position After Notice of Reinstatement),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (oral notice) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (oral notice).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해788 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee claimed that the team leader orally notified him of dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow.” However, as no concrete evidence was submitted to prove the existence of a dismissal—namely, that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will—the Commission held that no dismissal had occurred.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the team leader had orally notified him of dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow.” After reviewing the statements and materials submitted, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission found that it had not been proven that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will, and therefore dismissed the employee’s application.
In this case, the key issue was not so much whether the dismissal was unfair, but rather whether the precondition of “the existence of a dismissal” was satisfied in the first place. This decision illustrates how the Labor Relations Commission determines the existence or non-existence of a dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a superior’s statement at the workplace—“Do not come in from tomorrow”—by itself is sufficient to find that a dismissal exists, in the sense that the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that there was no objective evidence that the employer had actually restricted the employee’s attendance at work or taken follow-up measures premised on the termination of the employment relationship, such as personnel actions, adjustments to personnel records, or reporting loss of coverage under the four major social insurances. It also pointed out that there was a lack of consistent and credible proof regarding the specific circumstances, context, and subsequent developments of the alleged oral dismissal notice claimed by the employee, and that no supplementary evidence had been submitted to support the existence of a dismissal, such as a written dismissal notice, text messages or messenger records, or audio recordings.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal at issue did not exist, and that it was appropriate to dismiss the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal should bear in mind that they must first prove the very existence of a dismissal—that is, that the employer unilaterally severed the employment relationship. Vague, reprimand-like remarks by a superior may be insufficient. It is therefore important to secure, as promptly as possible, objective evidence such as circumstances showing that the employee was actually barred from coming to work, personnel or social insurance processing premised on dismissal, text messages, KakaoTalk messages, emails, or audio recordings.
It is also helpful, for purposes of enhancing the credibility of one’s testimony before the Labor Relations Commission, to organize in the form of notes or a diary who (team leader, representative, etc.) notified the employee, when, using what specific expressions, and how subsequent events unfolded in terms of attendance, wage payment, and exclusion from work.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, particular caution is required because, even where there is no actual intention to dismiss, emotional expressions such as “Just quit” or “Don’t come in from tomorrow” may later be alleged by the employee to constitute a dismissal. If the remark is a reprimand unrelated to the exercise of personnel authority, expressions should be chosen carefully. Where a decision is made to terminate the employment relationship through disciplinary dismissal, redundancy dismissal, etc., it is necessary to provide written notice pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and to clearly state and retain the reasons and effective date of dismissal.
In situations where an employee alleges unfair dismissal, the employer should systematically organize materials that can explain that, in reality, there was no restriction on attendance and that the employment relationship continued—for example, in terms of wage payment, allocation of working hours, and work instructions—so as to reduce unnecessary disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
In this type of case, it is highly beneficial for both employees and employers to have an accurate understanding of the structure of the burden of proof and methods of proving the existence or non-existence of dismissal, and to organize the facts from the early stages with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. This greatly aids in both preventing and responding to disputes.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
This is a case in which the employee claimed that the team leader had orally notified him of dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” but the Commission held that no dismissal had occurred because no concrete evidence was submitted to prove the existence of a dismissal—namely, that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
This is a case in which the employee claimed that the team leader had orally notified him of dismissal by saying, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” but the Commission held that no dismissal had occurred because no concrete evidence was submitted to prove the existence of a dismissal—namely, that the employer had unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Refusal to Return to Original Position After Notice of Reinstatement)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Original decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (oral notice), 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Refusal to Return to Original Position After Notice of Reinstatement),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (oral notice) can be found in the “List of Decisions on Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
