Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Exclusion Period Lapsed (17 Years Elapsed)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 556)
- Date2026/07/19 04:12
- Read 19
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the issue of “exclusion period lapsed (17 years elapsed)” was contested and the first-instance decision was ultimately upheld.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9554 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-27 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Key Issue Summary: The dismissal took place in 2008.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed on 22 August 2008 and, approximately 17 years later, on 4 August 2025, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first-instance decision, focusing its determination on whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act had lapsed.
This case reconfirms the legal principles governing exclusion periods, which are among the most basic fundamentals in unfair dismissal disputes, and serves as an important point of reference in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, which frequently handles Labor Relations Commission procedures.
Ⅱ. Issue Summary
The issue in this case is whether an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed approximately 17 years after the date of dismissal falls within the exclusion period for filing with the Labor Relations Commission under the Labor Standards Act and, accordingly, whether it is procedurally valid as an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the dismissal took place on 22 August 2008, that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was not filed until 4 August 2025, approximately 17 years thereafter, and that the Labor Standards Act prescribes a strict exclusion period in order to ensure the prompt and simple nature of unfair dismissal remedy procedures. In light of these factors, the panel determined that the application in this case had clearly been filed after the exclusion period had lapsed.
Although there was room to examine whether the dismissal in this case was substantively unfair, once the exclusion period—which is a precondition for accessing the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy procedures—had been exceeded, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was deemed procedurally defective, and the employee’s application was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees must bear firmly in mind that, regardless of whether they view the dismissal as unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or disciplinary dismissal, the period during which they can contest the dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission is strictly limited by law. Since the exclusion period begins to run from the date on which the dismissal takes effect (typically the date on which the dismissal notice is received), it is important for employees to manage the filing deadline with the Labor Relations Commission themselves, irrespective of any internal company appeal procedures or the progress of civil litigation. If you consider the dismissal to be unfair, you should immediately consult a labor law specialist to ensure that you do not miss the deadline for filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important, when carrying out dismissals or redundancies, to manage the dismissal date and notice date clearly and to systematically organize evidence such as written dismissal notices. In cases where an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is filed after a significant period has elapsed following the dismissal, whether the exclusion period has lapsed can become a key defense argument. Accordingly, employers should maintain personnel records, notices, and service records in good order. In addition, even if the exclusion period has lapsed, there may still be a possibility of separate civil litigation seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the dismissal, so the procedures and grounds for dismissal should be structured in accordance with legal standards from the initial dismissal stage.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
There is no dispute between the parties that the dismissal took place on 22 August 2008, and since the application for remedy was filed on 4 August 2025, after approximately 17 years had elapsed, the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal prescribed by the Labor Standards Act had lapsed.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
There is no dispute between the parties that the dismissal took place on 22 August 2008, and since the application for remedy was filed on 4 August 2025, after approximately 17 years had elapsed, the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal prescribed by the Labor Standards Act had lapsed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Punitive Nature (Performance Evaluation Grade F)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, exclusion period lapsed (17 years elapsed), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Punitive Nature (Performance Evaluation Grade F)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “Exclusion Period Lapsed (17 Years Elapsed)” can be viewed together in the “Exclusion Period Lapsed (17 Years Elapsed) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the issue of “exclusion period lapsed (17 years elapsed)” was contested and the first-instance decision was ultimately upheld.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9554 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-27 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Key Issue Summary: The dismissal took place in 2008.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed on 22 August 2008 and, approximately 17 years later, on 4 August 2025, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first-instance decision, focusing its determination on whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act had lapsed.
This case reconfirms the legal principles governing exclusion periods, which are among the most basic fundamentals in unfair dismissal disputes, and serves as an important point of reference in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, which frequently handles Labor Relations Commission procedures.
Ⅱ. Issue Summary
The issue in this case is whether an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed approximately 17 years after the date of dismissal falls within the exclusion period for filing with the Labor Relations Commission under the Labor Standards Act and, accordingly, whether it is procedurally valid as an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the dismissal took place on 22 August 2008, that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was not filed until 4 August 2025, approximately 17 years thereafter, and that the Labor Standards Act prescribes a strict exclusion period in order to ensure the prompt and simple nature of unfair dismissal remedy procedures. In light of these factors, the panel determined that the application in this case had clearly been filed after the exclusion period had lapsed.
Although there was room to examine whether the dismissal in this case was substantively unfair, once the exclusion period—which is a precondition for accessing the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy procedures—had been exceeded, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was deemed procedurally defective, and the employee’s application was dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees must bear firmly in mind that, regardless of whether they view the dismissal as unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or disciplinary dismissal, the period during which they can contest the dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission is strictly limited by law. Since the exclusion period begins to run from the date on which the dismissal takes effect (typically the date on which the dismissal notice is received), it is important for employees to manage the filing deadline with the Labor Relations Commission themselves, irrespective of any internal company appeal procedures or the progress of civil litigation. If you consider the dismissal to be unfair, you should immediately consult a labor law specialist to ensure that you do not miss the deadline for filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important, when carrying out dismissals or redundancies, to manage the dismissal date and notice date clearly and to systematically organize evidence such as written dismissal notices. In cases where an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is filed after a significant period has elapsed following the dismissal, whether the exclusion period has lapsed can become a key defense argument. Accordingly, employers should maintain personnel records, notices, and service records in good order. In addition, even if the exclusion period has lapsed, there may still be a possibility of separate civil litigation seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the dismissal, so the procedures and grounds for dismissal should be structured in accordance with legal standards from the initial dismissal stage.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
There is no dispute between the parties that the dismissal took place on 22 August 2008, and since the application for remedy was filed on 4 August 2025, after approximately 17 years had elapsed, the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal prescribed by the Labor Standards Act had lapsed.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
There is no dispute between the parties that the dismissal took place on 22 August 2008, and since the application for remedy was filed on 4 August 2025, after approximately 17 years had elapsed, the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal prescribed by the Labor Standards Act had lapsed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Punitive Nature (Performance Evaluation Grade F)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, exclusion period lapsed (17 years elapsed), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Punitive Nature (Performance Evaluation Grade F)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “Exclusion Period Lapsed (17 Years Elapsed)” can be viewed together in the “Exclusion Period Lapsed (17 Years Elapsed) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
