[Case Information] This case is a decision concluded under case number 2025부해9063, dealing with the issues of “existence of dismissal and interest in relief (loss of insured status report during industrial accident medical care).” Decision date: 2026-10-12 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2025부해9063 Summary of key issues: A. Existence of dismissal The employer, without any basis, falsely invoked an official letter from the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service and told the employee that it would be beneficial for the employee to “formally and nominally resign during the approved medical care period and then be rehired after the end of the medical care,” thereby inducing the employee to say “okay.” The employer then filed a report of loss of insured status under employment insurance as of 19 April 2025, thereby terminating the employment relationship with the employee… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns whether the employer’s action of processing an employee, who was undergoing medical care for an industrial accident, as having resigned by filing a loss of insured status report under employment insurance constitutes unfair dismissal, and whether the employee’s interest in relief is extinguished where, in the subsequent unfair dismissal relief proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, the employer ordered reinstatement to the original position and paid a portion of the wages in lieu of the dismissal period. On 12 October 2026, under case number 2025부해9063, the Central Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision recognizing both unfair dismissal and the continued existence of interest in relief. In doing so, it also examined whether there was a violation of the statutory prohibition on dismissal during a protected period and the obligation to give written notice of dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: “(i) whether the employer’s action of terminating the employment relationship with an employee undergoing industrial accident medical care, by way of a loss of insured status report under employment insurance, constitutes a dismissal; and (ii) whether the employee still has an interest in seeking relief for unfair dismissal, even where there has subsequently been an order for reinstatement to the original position and partial payment of wages in lieu of the dismissal period.” Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The decision panel found that the employer, without any basis, presented a fabricated official letter from the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service and persuaded the employee that it would be beneficial to “formally resign only in name during the approved industrial accident medical care period and then be rehired after the end of the medical care,” that there was no evidence whatsoever that the employee had expressed a genuine intention to resign, and that the employer unilaterally filed a loss of insured status report under employment insurance as of 19 April 2025 to terminate the employment relationship. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the employer had terminated the employment contract unilaterally, without the employee’s true and substantive consent or acceptance, and that this therefore constituted a dismissal, not a resignation or termination by mutual agreement. In addition, the amount of KRW 8,025,070 paid by the employer fell short of the legitimate amount of wages in lieu of the dismissal period, KRW 10,265,806, calculated on the basis of the employee’s average wage. Because the full amount of wages in lieu of the dismissal period had not been paid, it was difficult to regard the Labor Relations Commission’s relief order (reinstatement to the original position plus payment of wages in lieu of the dismissal period) as having been fully complied with. Furthermore, following the Supreme Court en banc decision, the legal principle has been established that an order to pay wages in lieu of the dismissal period can have independent remedial value. On these grounds, the panel held that the employee’s interest in relief had not been extinguished. The panel also noted that the employee’s industrial accident medical care period continued until 30 April 2025, and that, under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and the Labor Standards Act, dismissal was prohibited until 30 days thereafter (i.e., until 30 May 2025). Despite this prohibition period, the employer carried out the dismissal during that time and entirely failed to provide written notice of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was both procedurally and substantively unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) If, while you are undergoing industrial accident medical care, you receive proposals such as “let’s have you resign only in form and then rehire you later” or “this will be advantageous in terms of insurance or compensation,” you should be aware that this may be an attempt to circumvent the statutory restrictions on dismissal. You should never rely on verbal consent alone; instead, you must clearly confirm in writing the content of the proposal and its legal effects. Also, even if the employer merely files a loss of insured status report under the four major social insurances without issuing a written notice of dismissal, you should remember that, as a rule, a dismissal without written notice under the Labor Standards Act is invalid, and that you may file for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission and claim wages in lieu of the dismissal period. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) With respect to employees undergoing industrial accident medical care, dismissal is, in principle, prohibited during the medical care period and for 30 days thereafter. Therefore, even if there are operational difficulties in workforce management, you must not attempt to resolve the situation through arbitrary processing of resignation or loss of insured status reports. Even where there are unavoidable circumstances, you must strictly satisfy the requirements of just cause and proper procedure under the Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, if you wish to assert that the termination of the employment relationship was by resignation or mutual agreement, it is essential to have written or objective evidence capable of proving the employee’s genuine intention to resign and the circumstances thereof. Where an order for reinstatement to the original position has been issued, you must accurately calculate and fully pay all wages in lieu of the dismissal period; only then can you argue that you have complied with the Labor Relations Commission’s relief order and that the employee’s interest in relief has been extinguished. In this type of case, both employees and employers should fully understand the latest legal principles regarding the existence of dismissal and the presence or absence of interest in relief, and accurately distinguish situations where there is, in substance, a dismissal that is merely disguised in form as a loss of insured status report or resignation. To this end, it is advisable to conduct prior risk assessment and management with the assistance of a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that: (i) the employer’s processing of an employee undergoing industrial accident medical care as having resigned, by way of a loss of insured status report under employment insurance, constituted unfair dismissal; and (ii) there remained an interest in relief with respect to the employer’s failure to comply with the order for reinstatement to the original position by not paying wages in lieu of the dismissal period. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (1) Existence of Dismissal The employer, without any basis, falsely invoked an official letter from the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service and told the employee that it would be beneficial to “formally and nominally resign during the approved medical care period and then be rehired after the end of the medical care,” thereby inducing the employee to say “okay.” By filing a loss of insured status report under employment insurance as of 19 April 2025, the employer terminated the employment relationship with the employee. This was carried out unilaterally, without the employee’s true and substantive consent or acceptance, and therefore constitutes a dismissal. (2) Existence of Interest in Relief Following the Employer’s Order of Reinstatement to the Original Position After the Relief Application The amount of KRW 8,025,070 paid by the employer falls short of the legitimate amount of wages in lieu of the dismissal period, KRW 10,265,806, calculated on the basis of the employee’s average wage. Accordingly, it cannot be found that the employee’s interest in relief has been extinguished. (3) Justifiability of the Dismissal The employee’s industrial accident medical care period continued until 30 April 2025, and therefore the employer was prohibited from dismissing the employee until 30 May 2025. Nevertheless, the employer dismissed the employee during the dismissal prohibition period and failed to provide written notice of the reasons for and timing of the dismissal. The dismissal is therefore unfair. [Further Related Decisions] - “‘Interest in Relief and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Existence of Dismissal (On-Site Daily Worker Team Leader’s Remarks)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: 2026-10-13 - “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal and interest in relief (loss of insured status report during industrial accident medical care), 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&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (On-Site Daily Worker Team Leader’s Remarks)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal and interest in relief (loss of insured status report during industrial accident medical care) can be found in the “Existence of Dismissal and Interest in Relief (Loss of Insured Status Report During Industrial Accident Medical Care) Related Decisions” list. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article