[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “failure to submit a reinstatement application (long‑term sick leave).” Decision date: 2026-07-29 · Labor Relations Commission: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae1338 Key issue summary: After granting the employee a first leave of absence from 1 December 2025 to 31 December 2025, the company, notwithstanding Article 29(2) (Leave of Absence) of its Rules of Employment (“the period of leave of absence shall be within one month, and may be extended only once with the company’s approval”), granted a second leave of absence of two months (from 1 January 2026 to 28 February 2026), rather than one month, based on a medical certificate submitted on 22 December 2025, thereby allowing sufficient time for treatment. 1. Legal Implications This article examines, through a Labor Relations Commission case in which the existence of unfair dismissal was at issue, under what circumstances termination of employment based on failure to submit a reinstatement application after the expiry of a leave of absence is deemed lawful. Focusing on the decision in Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission Case 2026BuHae1338, we outline the Commission’s reasoning structure and practical implications from the perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅰ. Case Overview Due to illness, the employee was granted a first leave of absence by the company from 1 December 2025 to 31 December 2025, and, after submitting an additional medical certificate, was approved for a second leave of absence from 1 January 2026 to 28 February 2026. Although the company’s Rules of Employment provided that the leave period shall be within one month and may be extended once, the company went beyond this and allowed an additional two‑month leave so as to accommodate the employee’s treatment and recovery. However, under the Rules of Employment, if, after the expiry of the leave period, the employee fails to submit a reinstatement application within the prescribed period, or if the reason for the leave has not ceased to exist, or if the employee is deemed physically or mentally unable to perform his or her duties, the employment relationship may be terminated. The employee did not submit a reinstatement application after the leave expired, the company regarded the employment relationship as terminated pursuant to the Rules of Employment, and the employee filed a relief application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, where the Rules of Employment provide that the employment relationship is to be terminated if a reinstatement application is not submitted after the expiry of the leave period, the employer’s notice of termination of the employment relationship to an employee who failed to submit a reinstatement application after a long‑term sick leave constitutes unfair dismissal, or whether it should instead be viewed as a termination of the employment relationship in which no “dismissal” exists at all. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that: the employer granted the employee an additional second leave of absence of two months, exceeding the one‑month plus one‑month limit allowed under the Rules of Employment, thereby providing sufficient opportunity for treatment and recovery; despite this, the employee failed to fulfill the obligation to return to work (submission of a reinstatement application), so that the state of being unable to provide labor continued; and the Rules of Employment explicitly provided that the employment relationship may be terminated where, after the expiry of the leave period, a reinstatement application is not submitted or the reason for the leave has not ceased to exist. In light of these factors, the Commission held that the employment relationship with the employee should be regarded as having been terminated pursuant to the Rules of Employment, and that it was difficult to view there as being any separate disciplinary or personnel measure in the form of “dismissal.” Accordingly, the Commission held that no dismissal existed in this case. [Doctrinal Commentary on the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning] According to Supreme Court precedents and many commentaries, systems of leave of absence and reinstatement applications serve to manage work disruptions caused by long‑term leave and to clarify whether the employee intends to continue the employment relationship. Provisions in Rules of Employment or collective agreements stating that an employee will be treated as having resigned if a reinstatement application is not submitted within a certain period after the leave expires may be deemed legitimate, as they are intended to prevent paralysis of operations due to long‑term leave. However, it is not permissible to mechanically process automatic resignation or dismissal ex officio solely on the formal ground of “failure to submit a reinstatement application.” In line with the case law, a substantive, comprehensive assessment must be made of factors such as whether the employee intended to return, whether there were justifiable reasons for failing to submit the reinstatement application, whether the company made unreasonable demands regarding submission of the application, and whether the intention to return was expressed in another manner, such as orally. For example, there is a judgment holding that where an employee clearly expressed an intention to return to work orally to a company representative, dismissal ex officio based solely on failure to submit a written reinstatement application lacked legitimacy. Furthermore, even where Rules of Employment provide for automatic resignation or dismissal ex officio, if the relevant provision does not concern “automatic extinction” grounds such as the employee’s death, mandatory retirement age, or expiry of a fixed term, but instead allows the employer unilaterally to terminate the employment relationship, such termination is evaluated as a “dismissal” subject to the restrictions on dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. In this case, based on the materials submitted and the results of the hearing, the Labor Relations Commission found that there were circumstances sufficient to recognize that termination of the employment relationship pursuant to the Rules of Employment was substantively justified. This is a notable aspect of the decision. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, when taking leave for reasons such as illness or childcare, it is essential to check the Rules of Employment regarding the leave period, the possibility of extension, and the deadline for submitting a reinstatement application. Even if the reason for the leave continues, it is important to clearly inform the company, before and after the expiry of the leave period, of your intention to return or the need for additional leave, and, where possible, to leave a written record (email, official letter, etc.). In particular, if you intend to return to work but have circumstances that prevent you from submitting a reinstatement application on time (hospitalization, communication difficulties, etc.), you should, through family members or an agent if necessary, inform the company of your situation and clearly express your intention to return or to extend the leave. Otherwise, as in this case, the Labor Relations Commission may evaluate the situation as a “lawful termination of the employment relationship due to failure to fulfill the obligation to return,” making it difficult to obtain relief for unfair dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to have clear provisions in the Rules of Employment regarding leave and reinstatement systems, and in particular to specify in detail the leave period, conditions for extension, deadline and procedures for submitting a reinstatement application, and the method of terminating the employment relationship in the event of failure to return. As in this case, it is also helpful for preventing disputes to grant a sufficiently long leave period beyond what is formally allowed under the Rules of Employment, and to clearly notify the employee in advance regarding the guidance on submission of the reinstatement application and how the case will be handled after the deadline. However, even when terminating the employment relationship due to failure to submit a reinstatement application, it is advisable to confirm substantive circumstances such as the employee’s intention to return, health condition, ability to communicate, and whether there was oral notice, and, where possible, to leave written records of requests to submit the reinstatement application and of the guidance on how the case will be handled if it is not submitted. This will help secure objective evidence that can support the legitimacy of the employer’s actions before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that no dismissal existed because the employment relationship was terminated after the leave period on the ground that the employee failed to submit a reinstatement application pursuant to the Rules of Employment. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning After granting the employee a first leave of absence from 1 December 2025 to 31 December 2025, the company, notwithstanding Article 29(2) (Leave of Absence) of its Rules of Employment (“the period of leave of absence shall be within one month, and may be extended only once with the company’s approval”), granted a second leave of absence of two months (from 1 January 2026 to 28 February 2026), rather than one month, based on a medical certificate submitted on 22 December 2025, thereby allowing sufficient time for treatment. Article 78(1)6 of the company’s Rules of Employment (Retirement and Date of Retirement) provides that the employment relationship is to be terminated “when, after the expiry of the leave period, the employee fails to submit a reinstatement application within the prescribed period or when the reason for the leave has not ceased to exist,” and Article 79(2) (Dismissal) provides that the employment relationship is to be terminated where the employee is deemed physically or mentally unable to perform his or her duties. Despite having granted the employee sufficient opportunity for recovery by allowing a leave period exceeding that permitted under the Rules of Employment, the employee failed to fulfill the obligation to return to work, and the state of being unable to provide labor continued. Accordingly, it can be viewed that the employment relationship in this case was terminated pursuant to the Rules of Employment. Therefore, based on the evidence submitted and the matters confirmed at the hearing, it is found that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated because the employee failed to submit a reinstatement application pursuant to the Rules of Employment, and thus no dismissal exists in this case. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management/Supervision)’ - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Succession of Employment (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, failure to submit reinstatement application (long‑term sick leave), 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 Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Request for Resignation/Expression of Intention to Resign)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to failure to submit a reinstatement application (long‑term sick leave) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Failure to Submit Reinstatement Application (Long‑Term Sick Leave).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article