Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Relief Interest (Formal Reinstatement Order)” (Unfair Dismissal 140)
- Date2026/01/23 04:09
- Read 243
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “relief interest (formal reinstatement order).”
[Case Information]
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2024부해4120 ○○○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2025.12.31 · Outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether there was still relief interest in the relief application
The employer argued that there was no relief interest because it had ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the construction team in the course of handling the employee’s prior complaint. However, (i) at that time the employer merely stated that it was willing to issue a reinstatement order, and never subsequently issued a formal reinstatement order to the employee; (ii) even if that statement were to be regarded as a reinstatement order, the employer did not pay the employee the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, the employer mentioned an “intention to reinstate to the construction team” during the handling of a prior complaint case. The dispute then centered on whether the dismissal was unfair and whether a monetary compensation order could be issued. The employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined together (i) the legitimacy of the dismissal, (ii) the existence of relief interest, and (iii) the calculation of the monetary compensation amount.
The key issue in this case was whether “relief interest in an unfair dismissal relief application still exists where the employer has expressed, only at the verbal level, an intention to reinstate, and whether a dismissal without written notice is lawful.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were, first, whether relief interest in an unfair dismissal relief application remains even where, in the course of handling a prior complaint case, the employer responded to the effect that it would “reinstate the employee to the construction team.” Second, whether the dismissal can be considered a lawful dismissal under the Labor Standards Act where there was no just cause sufficient to warrant dismissal and the obligation to give written notice of dismissal was violated. Third, whether the Labor Relations Commission may substitute a monetary compensation order for a reinstatement order where the employee has clearly chosen monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer had merely responded to the complaint-handling authority that it was willing to issue a reinstatement order, and that there was no subsequent formal and specific notification of a reinstatement order to the employee. Even if that response were to be regarded as a reinstatement order, the employer did not pay the employee the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, and it did not specify a reinstatement date. Furthermore, despite being aware of the employee’s childcare circumstances that made reinstatement to the construction team difficult, the employer mentioned only reinstatement to the construction team, not to the original position. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that it was difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine.
With respect to the dismissal of the employee, the panel found that there was no specific and objective just cause sufficient to warrant dismissal, and that there was a serious procedural defect because the employer failed to comply with the obligation to give written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Taking these factors together, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
In addition, the panel noted that the employee had expressly requested monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and that Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act permits a monetary compensation order where the employee does not wish to be reinstated to the original position at the time of an unfair dismissal relief order. On this basis, the panel calculated the amount equivalent to the wages the employee would have received had he or she worked normally during the dismissal period and held that it was appropriate to issue a monetary compensation order in the amount of KRW 15,429,550.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the employer says “we will reinstate you,” relief interest cannot be deemed extinguished if there is no clear presentation of specific matters such as the reinstatement date, department of assignment, wage payment plan, and treatment of wages equivalent for the dismissal period. In addition, where dismissal is effected without written notice—through text messages, verbal notice, or de facto exclusion from work—unfair dismissal may be recognized on the basis of procedural defects alone. It is therefore important to carefully secure evidence and details of how the dismissal was communicated (texts, messenger records, recordings, HR documents, etc.).
Moreover, if reinstatement to the original position is practically burdensome, or if long-term service is deemed difficult due to a deterioration in the relationship with the company, it may be advisable to consider, from the Labor Relations Commission stage, a strategy of choosing a monetary compensation order. In doing so, employees should consult with an expert regarding the structure for calculating the monetary compensation amount, including the treatment of income earned from other employment during the dismissal period (interim earnings), the scope of shutdown allowances, and so forth.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where dismissal is deemed necessary, first, there must be specific and serious grounds for dismissal that can be proven with objective evidence, and second, the statutory obligation under the Labor Standards Act to give written notice of dismissal must be strictly observed. Simple verbal notice, notice by text or messenger, or de facto pressure to resign under the guise of exercising managerial authority is highly likely to result in a finding of unfair dismissal due to procedural defects.
Furthermore, if the employer responds only in a formal manner to the Labor Relations Commission or other complaint-handling bodies by stating that it “has an intention to reinstate,” while in reality failing to determine the reinstatement date, wage settlement, or department assignment, or offering only a disadvantageous department instead of the original position, it will be difficult to argue that relief interest has been extinguished, and the employer’s good faith may instead be called into question. If the employer wishes to resolve the dispute through reinstatement or settlement, it should clearly set out in writing matters such as payment of wages equivalent for the dismissal period, the specific reinstatement date, and the department of assignment and working conditions.
Finally, even where the employee does not wish to be reinstated to the original position and applies for monetary compensation, the employer should objectively organize the basis for calculating the monetary compensation amount (average wage, relevant period, whether to deduct interim earnings, etc.) in order to prevent secondary disputes such as enforcement penalty proceedings or civil litigation.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there was relief interest in the relief application
The employer argued that there was no relief interest in the relief application because it had ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the construction team in response to the complaint filed by the employee. However, (i) at that time, the employer merely stated that it was willing to issue a reinstatement order, and never subsequently issued a formal reinstatement order to the employee; (ii) even if such a response were to be regarded as a reinstatement order, the employer did not pay the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; and (iii) furthermore, the employer did not specify the reinstatement date and, despite being aware that reinstatement to the construction team was difficult for the employee due to childcare issues, stated only that reinstatement to the construction team, not to the original position, was possible. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it was difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
There was no just cause sufficient to warrant dismissal, and there was also a procedural defect because the obligation to give written notice of dismissal was violated. Accordingly, the dismissal of the employee was unfair.
C. Whether to accept the application for a monetary compensation order
Because the employee requested monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this request was accepted. As a result of calculating the monetary compensation amount, KRW 15,429,550 (fifteen million four hundred twenty-nine thousand five hundred fifty won) was found to be payable.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there was relief interest in the relief application
The employer argued that there was no relief interest in the relief application because it had ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the construction team in response to the complaint filed by the employee. However, (i) at that time, the employer merely stated that it was willing to issue a reinstatement order, and never subsequently issued a formal reinstatement order to the employee; (ii) even if such a response were to be regarded as a reinstatement order, the employer did not pay the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; and (iii) furthermore, the employer did not specify the reinstatement date and, despite being aware that reinstatement to the construction team was difficult for the employee due to childcare issues, stated only that reinstatement to the construction team, not to the original position, was possible. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it was difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
There was no just cause sufficient to warrant dismissal, and there was also a procedural defect because the obligation to give written notice of dismissal was violated. Accordingly, the dismissal of the employee was unfair.
C. Whether to accept the application for a monetary compensation order
Because the employee requested monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this request was accepted. As a result of calculating the monetary compensation amount, KRW 15,429,550 (fifteen million four hundred twenty-nine thousand five hundred fifty won) was found to be payable.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Extinction of Relief Interest (Genuine Reinstatement Order to Original Position)”
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement by Telephone Call)”
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, relief interest (formal reinstatement order), 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 Relief Interest (Genuine Reinstatement Order to Original Position)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to relief interest (formal reinstatement order) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Relief Interest (Formal Reinstatement Order).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2024부해4120 ○○○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2025.12.31 · Outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether there was still relief interest in the relief application
The employer argued that there was no relief interest because it had ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the construction team in the course of handling the employee’s prior complaint. However, (i) at that time the employer merely stated that it was willing to issue a reinstatement order, and never subsequently issued a formal reinstatement order to the employee; (ii) even if that statement were to be regarded as a reinstatement order, the employer did not pay the employee the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, the employer mentioned an “intention to reinstate to the construction team” during the handling of a prior complaint case. The dispute then centered on whether the dismissal was unfair and whether a monetary compensation order could be issued. The employee sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined together (i) the legitimacy of the dismissal, (ii) the existence of relief interest, and (iii) the calculation of the monetary compensation amount.
The key issue in this case was whether “relief interest in an unfair dismissal relief application still exists where the employer has expressed, only at the verbal level, an intention to reinstate, and whether a dismissal without written notice is lawful.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were, first, whether relief interest in an unfair dismissal relief application remains even where, in the course of handling a prior complaint case, the employer responded to the effect that it would “reinstate the employee to the construction team.” Second, whether the dismissal can be considered a lawful dismissal under the Labor Standards Act where there was no just cause sufficient to warrant dismissal and the obligation to give written notice of dismissal was violated. Third, whether the Labor Relations Commission may substitute a monetary compensation order for a reinstatement order where the employee has clearly chosen monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer had merely responded to the complaint-handling authority that it was willing to issue a reinstatement order, and that there was no subsequent formal and specific notification of a reinstatement order to the employee. Even if that response were to be regarded as a reinstatement order, the employer did not pay the employee the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, and it did not specify a reinstatement date. Furthermore, despite being aware of the employee’s childcare circumstances that made reinstatement to the construction team difficult, the employer mentioned only reinstatement to the construction team, not to the original position. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that it was difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine.
With respect to the dismissal of the employee, the panel found that there was no specific and objective just cause sufficient to warrant dismissal, and that there was a serious procedural defect because the employer failed to comply with the obligation to give written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Taking these factors together, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
In addition, the panel noted that the employee had expressly requested monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and that Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act permits a monetary compensation order where the employee does not wish to be reinstated to the original position at the time of an unfair dismissal relief order. On this basis, the panel calculated the amount equivalent to the wages the employee would have received had he or she worked normally during the dismissal period and held that it was appropriate to issue a monetary compensation order in the amount of KRW 15,429,550.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the employer says “we will reinstate you,” relief interest cannot be deemed extinguished if there is no clear presentation of specific matters such as the reinstatement date, department of assignment, wage payment plan, and treatment of wages equivalent for the dismissal period. In addition, where dismissal is effected without written notice—through text messages, verbal notice, or de facto exclusion from work—unfair dismissal may be recognized on the basis of procedural defects alone. It is therefore important to carefully secure evidence and details of how the dismissal was communicated (texts, messenger records, recordings, HR documents, etc.).
Moreover, if reinstatement to the original position is practically burdensome, or if long-term service is deemed difficult due to a deterioration in the relationship with the company, it may be advisable to consider, from the Labor Relations Commission stage, a strategy of choosing a monetary compensation order. In doing so, employees should consult with an expert regarding the structure for calculating the monetary compensation amount, including the treatment of income earned from other employment during the dismissal period (interim earnings), the scope of shutdown allowances, and so forth.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where dismissal is deemed necessary, first, there must be specific and serious grounds for dismissal that can be proven with objective evidence, and second, the statutory obligation under the Labor Standards Act to give written notice of dismissal must be strictly observed. Simple verbal notice, notice by text or messenger, or de facto pressure to resign under the guise of exercising managerial authority is highly likely to result in a finding of unfair dismissal due to procedural defects.
Furthermore, if the employer responds only in a formal manner to the Labor Relations Commission or other complaint-handling bodies by stating that it “has an intention to reinstate,” while in reality failing to determine the reinstatement date, wage settlement, or department assignment, or offering only a disadvantageous department instead of the original position, it will be difficult to argue that relief interest has been extinguished, and the employer’s good faith may instead be called into question. If the employer wishes to resolve the dispute through reinstatement or settlement, it should clearly set out in writing matters such as payment of wages equivalent for the dismissal period, the specific reinstatement date, and the department of assignment and working conditions.
Finally, even where the employee does not wish to be reinstated to the original position and applies for monetary compensation, the employer should objectively organize the basis for calculating the monetary compensation amount (average wage, relevant period, whether to deduct interim earnings, etc.) in order to prevent secondary disputes such as enforcement penalty proceedings or civil litigation.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether there was relief interest in the relief application
The employer argued that there was no relief interest in the relief application because it had ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the construction team in response to the complaint filed by the employee. However, (i) at that time, the employer merely stated that it was willing to issue a reinstatement order, and never subsequently issued a formal reinstatement order to the employee; (ii) even if such a response were to be regarded as a reinstatement order, the employer did not pay the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; and (iii) furthermore, the employer did not specify the reinstatement date and, despite being aware that reinstatement to the construction team was difficult for the employee due to childcare issues, stated only that reinstatement to the construction team, not to the original position, was possible. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it was difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
There was no just cause sufficient to warrant dismissal, and there was also a procedural defect because the obligation to give written notice of dismissal was violated. Accordingly, the dismissal of the employee was unfair.
C. Whether to accept the application for a monetary compensation order
Because the employee requested monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this request was accepted. As a result of calculating the monetary compensation amount, KRW 15,429,550 (fifteen million four hundred twenty-nine thousand five hundred fifty won) was found to be payable.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether there was relief interest in the relief application
The employer argued that there was no relief interest in the relief application because it had ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the construction team in response to the complaint filed by the employee. However, (i) at that time, the employer merely stated that it was willing to issue a reinstatement order, and never subsequently issued a formal reinstatement order to the employee; (ii) even if such a response were to be regarded as a reinstatement order, the employer did not pay the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; and (iii) furthermore, the employer did not specify the reinstatement date and, despite being aware that reinstatement to the construction team was difficult for the employee due to childcare issues, stated only that reinstatement to the construction team, not to the original position, was possible. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it was difficult to view the employer’s reinstatement order as genuine.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
There was no just cause sufficient to warrant dismissal, and there was also a procedural defect because the obligation to give written notice of dismissal was violated. Accordingly, the dismissal of the employee was unfair.
C. Whether to accept the application for a monetary compensation order
Because the employee requested monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this request was accepted. As a result of calculating the monetary compensation amount, KRW 15,429,550 (fifteen million four hundred twenty-nine thousand five hundred fifty won) was found to be payable.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Extinction of Relief Interest (Genuine Reinstatement Order to Original Position)”
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement by Telephone Call)”
- Unfair dismissal decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, relief interest (formal reinstatement order), 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 Relief Interest (Genuine Reinstatement Order to Original Position)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to relief interest (formal reinstatement order) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Relief Interest (Formal Reinstatement Order).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
