Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Mandatory Retirement Reached (Foundation’s Work Rules)” (Unfair Dismissal 183)
- Date2026/02/06 04:18
- Read 251
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “mandatory retirement reached (foundation’s work rules).”
Adjudicating Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9221 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Disposition: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
a.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee of a foundation claimed that the employment relationship continued even after reaching the mandatory retirement age and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the relationship between the foundation’s articles of incorporation and work rules, on the one hand, and the higher-level norm (Constitution Enforcement Regulations), on the other, and then determined both the point in time when the employee reached the mandatory retirement age and whether any remedial interest existed in an application filed thereafter.
The issue in this case was whether “the mandatory retirement provision in the foundation’s work rules was validly applicable, and whether any remedial interest existed in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed after the employment relationship had already terminated due to the reaching of the mandatory retirement age.”
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were, first, whether the foundation was required to follow a separate retirement standard pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations, which was referred to as a higher-level norm, or whether the retirement age stipulated in the foundation’s own work rules applied as is. Second, where the employment relationship automatically terminated on the mandatory retirement date (27 September 2025) under the work rules, whether any remedial interest existed—such that reinstatement to the original position or payment of wages in lieu could be ordered—when the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission after that date.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee’s mandatory retirement age must be deemed to have been reached on 27 September 2025 under the foundation’s work rules, in light of the following: the foundation is an independent incorporated foundation; there is no provision in the foundation’s articles of incorporation, etc. that expressly sets forth the same content as Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations; Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations appears to function as a basis for the General Assembly to control the legality of the foundation’s regulations and to direct their amendment where it determines that a specific provision of the foundation violates higher-level laws; and, decisively, the foundation’s work rules are valid rules that underwent prior review by the Rules Committee of the 2024 General Assembly and were promulgated by the Moderator of the General Assembly.
As to the dismissal at issue, the panel held that, because the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed on 16 October 2025, after the employment relationship had already automatically terminated due to the reaching of the mandatory retirement age, there was no remedial interest in ordering reinstatement to the original position or payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period, and therefore dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to accurately confirm, through the work rules, collective agreements, articles of incorporation, etc., where and how the standard for your mandatory retirement age is stipulated. Where the mandatory retirement age is specified in the work rules, etc. and that provision is valid, the reaching of the mandatory retirement age is regarded not as a dismissal but as an automatic termination of the employment relationship. Accordingly, an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed after the mandatory retirement age has passed may be found to lack remedial interest. If you believe that a particular measure constitutes unfair dismissal, you should promptly file an application with the Labor Relations Commission before the mandatory retirement date.
You should also bear in mind that the extension of the mandatory retirement age or re-employment after retirement, in principle, falls within the employer’s discretion, and it is difficult to recognize a right to extension of the retirement age solely on the ground that “another person was granted an extension.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly set out the mandatory retirement provisions in internal rules such as work rules, collective agreements, and articles of incorporation, and to organize them so that their relationship with higher-level norms is not ambiguous. If work rules that define the reaching of the mandatory retirement age as a ground for automatic retirement are valid, the employment relationship automatically terminates on the mandatory retirement date. On that premise, the actual notice of retirement merely constitutes a “notification of a state of mind” that confirms and informs the employee of the fact of termination of the employment relationship. The timing and wording of such notice should therefore be carefully designed to avoid disputes.
In addition, where there is a practice of extending the mandatory retirement age or entering into fixed-term contracts after retirement, it is advisable to codify the criteria and procedures in internal rules to reduce disputes over fairness and expectations of renewal. Where an unfair dismissal dispute is anticipated, it is recommended that you review in advance, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, the timing before and after the mandatory retirement date, the content of notices, and the effective date of the work rules.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the Mandatory Retirement Age Had Been Reached
(1) The foundation is an independent incorporated foundation;
(2) The foundation’s articles of incorporation, etc. do not expressly contain a provision equivalent to Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations;
(3) Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations appears to function as a basis on which the General Assembly may direct the amendment of a given provision where it determines that a specific provision of the foundation violates higher-level laws;
(4) The foundation’s work rules are rules that were subject to prior review by the Rules Committee of the 2024 General Assembly and were promulgated by the Moderator of the General Assembly.
In light of the foregoing, the employee’s mandatory retirement age must be deemed to have been reached on 27 September 2025 pursuant to the foundation’s work rules.
b. Whether Remedial Interest Exists
Because the application for remedy was filed on 16 October 2025, after the employment relationship had terminated due to the reaching of the mandatory retirement age, it was determined that no remedial interest existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Whether the Mandatory Retirement Age Had Been Reached
(1) The foundation is an independent incorporated foundation;
(2) The foundation’s articles of incorporation, etc. do not expressly contain a provision equivalent to Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations;
(3) Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations appears to function as a basis on which the General Assembly may direct the amendment of a given provision where it determines that a specific provision of the foundation violates higher-level laws;
(4) The foundation’s work rules are rules that were subject to prior review by the Rules Committee of the 2024 General Assembly and were promulgated by the Moderator of the General Assembly.
In light of the foregoing, the employee’s mandatory retirement age must be deemed to have been reached on 27 September 2025 pursuant to the foundation’s work rules.
b. Whether Remedial Interest Exists
Because the application for remedy was filed on 16 October 2025, after the employment relationship had terminated due to the reaching of the mandatory retirement age, it was determined that no remedial interest existed.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk/Oral Notice)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Withdrawal of Resignation (E-7-4 Visa Foreign Worker)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, mandatory retirement reached (foundation’s work rules), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Withdrawal of Resignation (E-7-4 Visa Foreign Worker)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to mandatory retirement reached (foundation’s work rules) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Mandatory Retirement Reached (Foundation’s Work Rules).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “mandatory retirement reached (foundation’s work rules).”
Adjudicating Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9221 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.15 · Disposition: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
a.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee of a foundation claimed that the employment relationship continued even after reaching the mandatory retirement age and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the relationship between the foundation’s articles of incorporation and work rules, on the one hand, and the higher-level norm (Constitution Enforcement Regulations), on the other, and then determined both the point in time when the employee reached the mandatory retirement age and whether any remedial interest existed in an application filed thereafter.
The issue in this case was whether “the mandatory retirement provision in the foundation’s work rules was validly applicable, and whether any remedial interest existed in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed after the employment relationship had already terminated due to the reaching of the mandatory retirement age.”
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case were, first, whether the foundation was required to follow a separate retirement standard pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations, which was referred to as a higher-level norm, or whether the retirement age stipulated in the foundation’s own work rules applied as is. Second, where the employment relationship automatically terminated on the mandatory retirement date (27 September 2025) under the work rules, whether any remedial interest existed—such that reinstatement to the original position or payment of wages in lieu could be ordered—when the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission after that date.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case found that the employee’s mandatory retirement age must be deemed to have been reached on 27 September 2025 under the foundation’s work rules, in light of the following: the foundation is an independent incorporated foundation; there is no provision in the foundation’s articles of incorporation, etc. that expressly sets forth the same content as Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations; Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations appears to function as a basis for the General Assembly to control the legality of the foundation’s regulations and to direct their amendment where it determines that a specific provision of the foundation violates higher-level laws; and, decisively, the foundation’s work rules are valid rules that underwent prior review by the Rules Committee of the 2024 General Assembly and were promulgated by the Moderator of the General Assembly.
As to the dismissal at issue, the panel held that, because the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed on 16 October 2025, after the employment relationship had already automatically terminated due to the reaching of the mandatory retirement age, there was no remedial interest in ordering reinstatement to the original position or payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period, and therefore dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to accurately confirm, through the work rules, collective agreements, articles of incorporation, etc., where and how the standard for your mandatory retirement age is stipulated. Where the mandatory retirement age is specified in the work rules, etc. and that provision is valid, the reaching of the mandatory retirement age is regarded not as a dismissal but as an automatic termination of the employment relationship. Accordingly, an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed after the mandatory retirement age has passed may be found to lack remedial interest. If you believe that a particular measure constitutes unfair dismissal, you should promptly file an application with the Labor Relations Commission before the mandatory retirement date.
You should also bear in mind that the extension of the mandatory retirement age or re-employment after retirement, in principle, falls within the employer’s discretion, and it is difficult to recognize a right to extension of the retirement age solely on the ground that “another person was granted an extension.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly set out the mandatory retirement provisions in internal rules such as work rules, collective agreements, and articles of incorporation, and to organize them so that their relationship with higher-level norms is not ambiguous. If work rules that define the reaching of the mandatory retirement age as a ground for automatic retirement are valid, the employment relationship automatically terminates on the mandatory retirement date. On that premise, the actual notice of retirement merely constitutes a “notification of a state of mind” that confirms and informs the employee of the fact of termination of the employment relationship. The timing and wording of such notice should therefore be carefully designed to avoid disputes.
In addition, where there is a practice of extending the mandatory retirement age or entering into fixed-term contracts after retirement, it is advisable to codify the criteria and procedures in internal rules to reduce disputes over fairness and expectations of renewal. Where an unfair dismissal dispute is anticipated, it is recommended that you review in advance, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, the timing before and after the mandatory retirement date, the content of notices, and the effective date of the work rules.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the Mandatory Retirement Age Had Been Reached
(1) The foundation is an independent incorporated foundation;
(2) The foundation’s articles of incorporation, etc. do not expressly contain a provision equivalent to Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations;
(3) Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations appears to function as a basis on which the General Assembly may direct the amendment of a given provision where it determines that a specific provision of the foundation violates higher-level laws;
(4) The foundation’s work rules are rules that were subject to prior review by the Rules Committee of the 2024 General Assembly and were promulgated by the Moderator of the General Assembly.
In light of the foregoing, the employee’s mandatory retirement age must be deemed to have been reached on 27 September 2025 pursuant to the foundation’s work rules.
b. Whether Remedial Interest Exists
Because the application for remedy was filed on 16 October 2025, after the employment relationship had terminated due to the reaching of the mandatory retirement age, it was determined that no remedial interest existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Whether the Mandatory Retirement Age Had Been Reached
(1) The foundation is an independent incorporated foundation;
(2) The foundation’s articles of incorporation, etc. do not expressly contain a provision equivalent to Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations;
(3) Article 3 of the Constitution Enforcement Regulations appears to function as a basis on which the General Assembly may direct the amendment of a given provision where it determines that a specific provision of the foundation violates higher-level laws;
(4) The foundation’s work rules are rules that were subject to prior review by the Rules Committee of the 2024 General Assembly and were promulgated by the Moderator of the General Assembly.
In light of the foregoing, the employee’s mandatory retirement age must be deemed to have been reached on 27 September 2025 pursuant to the foundation’s work rules.
b. Whether Remedial Interest Exists
Because the application for remedy was filed on 16 October 2025, after the employment relationship had terminated due to the reaching of the mandatory retirement age, it was determined that no remedial interest existed.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk/Oral Notice)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Withdrawal of Resignation (E-7-4 Visa Foreign Worker)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, mandatory retirement reached (foundation’s work rules), 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.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Withdrawal of Resignation (E-7-4 Visa Foreign Worker)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to mandatory retirement reached (foundation’s work rules) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Mandatory Retirement Reached (Foundation’s Work Rules).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
