Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning “Extinction of Relief Interest (Notice of Postponement of Transfer)” (Unfair Dismissal 230)
- Date2026/02/24 04:04
- Read 219
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (notice of postponement of transfer).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae248 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.28 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: In light of the fact that, after the employer notified the employee that the transfer disposition would be postponed and that a consultation procedure regarding the transfer would be conducted, no further measures were taken and the employee has continued to perform the previous duties up to the present, the employer’s notice of postponement must be viewed as an acknowledgment of procedural defects in the transfer disposition and as a notice of intent not to implement it, thereby constituting a withdrawal of the transfer disposition.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer first notified the employee of a transfer disposition, then later informed the employee that the transfer disposition would be “postponed” and that consultations regarding the transfer would be conducted, but in reality took no further action and allowed the employee to continue performing the previous duties.
The employee challenged the validity of the transfer disposition and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal and unfair personnel action. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision focusing on whether a relief interest still existed. Similar “withdrawal/postponement” situations frequently arise in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, so this decision is useful in understanding how the Labor Relations Commission views such issues.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “in a situation where, after the employer has notified the employee that the transfer disposition is postponed, the employee continues to perform the previous duties, there still exists a relief interest in the application for relief from unfair personnel action against the original transfer disposition.”
In other words, the key question is whether proceedings to challenge the validity of a transfer order can be maintained when the transfer order is in fact no longer being implemented, or whether, due to the employer’s actions, the purpose of the relief application must be deemed already achieved.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel held that the employer’s notice that the transfer disposition would be “postponed” and that a consultation procedure regarding the transfer would be conducted, coupled with the fact that, thereafter, no separate transfer was carried out and the employee has continued to perform the same duties as before up to the present, meant that the employer’s notice of postponement could be regarded as an expression of intent acknowledging procedural defects in the transfer disposition and indicating that it would no longer be implemented. The transfer disposition was therefore deemed to have been effectively withdrawn.
As a result, the employee must be regarded as having already achieved, through the employer’s actions, the original objective of the relief application—namely, exclusion of the effect of the transfer disposition and restoration to the status quo ante—so that there was no further need to maintain Labor Relations Commission proceedings with respect to the transfer disposition. Accordingly, the relief interest was found to have extinguished.
This can be seen as applying, to a transfer disposition case, the same legal principle established by the Supreme Court in precedents holding that when an employer cancels or withdraws a dismissal or reassignment and reinstates or restores the employee to the original position, the purpose of the relief application has been achieved and the relief interest has extinguished (Supreme Court Decision 90DaKa27389, rendered on February 22, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7***, rendered on February 8, 2002, etc.).
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, when the employer notifies that a disadvantageous disposition such as dismissal, transfer, or suspension is “postponed” or “withdrawn,” it is essential to confirm concretely how one’s working conditions and duties have actually been restored.
If the transfer disposition is not implemented and the employee continues to perform the previous duties, the Labor Relations Commission may determine that the purpose of the relief application has already been achieved and that the relief interest has extinguished. In that case, the employee should strategically consider whether there is a need to separately contest other issues such as wage loss or correction of personnel records.
It is also very important, for any future dispute, to preserve objective evidence of the employer’s notice of withdrawal/postponement, the actual working situation thereafter, and whether salary and position have been maintained, through emails, text messages, internal memoranda, and similar documents.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when a dispute over unfair dismissal or unfair transfer arises, it is necessary at an early stage to establish a clear policy as to whether to maintain the disadvantageous disposition as is, or to acknowledge procedural/substantive defects and restore the status quo through withdrawal or postponement.
In particular, as in this case, if the employer has no intention of further implementing the transfer disposition, it should clearly notify in writing that “the transfer disposition is postponed and the employee will continue to perform the previous duties,” and in practice maintain the previous duties, salary, and position. Doing so will significantly increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the extinction of the relief interest.
However, unlike dismissal or redundancy, a transfer or reassignment may again become an issue in the future through a new personnel order. Accordingly, employers should, in advance, establish and refine the necessity for exercising personnel authority and the relevant procedures (consultation, timing of notice, criteria, etc.).
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the fact that, after the employer notified the employee that the transfer disposition would be postponed and that a consultation procedure regarding the transfer disposition would be conducted, no further measures were taken and the employee has continued to perform the previous duties up to the present, the employer’s notice of postponement must be viewed as an acknowledgment of procedural defects in the transfer disposition and as a notice of intent not to implement it, thereby constituting a withdrawal of the transfer disposition. Accordingly, there is no longer any need to maintain relief procedures with respect to the transfer disposition, and the relief interest is deemed to have extinguished.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the fact that, after the employer notified the employee that the transfer disposition would be postponed and that a consultation procedure regarding the transfer disposition would be conducted, no further measures were taken and the employee has continued to perform the previous duties up to the present, the employer’s notice of postponement must be viewed as an acknowledgment of procedural defects in the transfer disposition and as a notice of intent not to implement it, thereby constituting a withdrawal of the transfer disposition. Accordingly, there is no longer any need to maintain relief procedures with respect to the transfer disposition, and the relief interest is deemed to have extinguished. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Dismissal (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (notice of postponement of transfer), 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, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Leaving the Workplace · Refusal to Submit Written Explanation)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (notice of postponement of transfer) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Relief Interest (Notice of Postponement of Transfer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (notice of postponement of transfer).”
Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae248 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.28 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: In light of the fact that, after the employer notified the employee that the transfer disposition would be postponed and that a consultation procedure regarding the transfer would be conducted, no further measures were taken and the employee has continued to perform the previous duties up to the present, the employer’s notice of postponement must be viewed as an acknowledgment of procedural defects in the transfer disposition and as a notice of intent not to implement it, thereby constituting a withdrawal of the transfer disposition.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer first notified the employee of a transfer disposition, then later informed the employee that the transfer disposition would be “postponed” and that consultations regarding the transfer would be conducted, but in reality took no further action and allowed the employee to continue performing the previous duties.
The employee challenged the validity of the transfer disposition and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal and unfair personnel action. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision focusing on whether a relief interest still existed. Similar “withdrawal/postponement” situations frequently arise in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, so this decision is useful in understanding how the Labor Relations Commission views such issues.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “in a situation where, after the employer has notified the employee that the transfer disposition is postponed, the employee continues to perform the previous duties, there still exists a relief interest in the application for relief from unfair personnel action against the original transfer disposition.”
In other words, the key question is whether proceedings to challenge the validity of a transfer order can be maintained when the transfer order is in fact no longer being implemented, or whether, due to the employer’s actions, the purpose of the relief application must be deemed already achieved.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel held that the employer’s notice that the transfer disposition would be “postponed” and that a consultation procedure regarding the transfer would be conducted, coupled with the fact that, thereafter, no separate transfer was carried out and the employee has continued to perform the same duties as before up to the present, meant that the employer’s notice of postponement could be regarded as an expression of intent acknowledging procedural defects in the transfer disposition and indicating that it would no longer be implemented. The transfer disposition was therefore deemed to have been effectively withdrawn.
As a result, the employee must be regarded as having already achieved, through the employer’s actions, the original objective of the relief application—namely, exclusion of the effect of the transfer disposition and restoration to the status quo ante—so that there was no further need to maintain Labor Relations Commission proceedings with respect to the transfer disposition. Accordingly, the relief interest was found to have extinguished.
This can be seen as applying, to a transfer disposition case, the same legal principle established by the Supreme Court in precedents holding that when an employer cancels or withdraws a dismissal or reassignment and reinstates or restores the employee to the original position, the purpose of the relief application has been achieved and the relief interest has extinguished (Supreme Court Decision 90DaKa27389, rendered on February 22, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7***, rendered on February 8, 2002, etc.).
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, when the employer notifies that a disadvantageous disposition such as dismissal, transfer, or suspension is “postponed” or “withdrawn,” it is essential to confirm concretely how one’s working conditions and duties have actually been restored.
If the transfer disposition is not implemented and the employee continues to perform the previous duties, the Labor Relations Commission may determine that the purpose of the relief application has already been achieved and that the relief interest has extinguished. In that case, the employee should strategically consider whether there is a need to separately contest other issues such as wage loss or correction of personnel records.
It is also very important, for any future dispute, to preserve objective evidence of the employer’s notice of withdrawal/postponement, the actual working situation thereafter, and whether salary and position have been maintained, through emails, text messages, internal memoranda, and similar documents.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when a dispute over unfair dismissal or unfair transfer arises, it is necessary at an early stage to establish a clear policy as to whether to maintain the disadvantageous disposition as is, or to acknowledge procedural/substantive defects and restore the status quo through withdrawal or postponement.
In particular, as in this case, if the employer has no intention of further implementing the transfer disposition, it should clearly notify in writing that “the transfer disposition is postponed and the employee will continue to perform the previous duties,” and in practice maintain the previous duties, salary, and position. Doing so will significantly increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the extinction of the relief interest.
However, unlike dismissal or redundancy, a transfer or reassignment may again become an issue in the future through a new personnel order. Accordingly, employers should, in advance, establish and refine the necessity for exercising personnel authority and the relevant procedures (consultation, timing of notice, criteria, etc.).
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the fact that, after the employer notified the employee that the transfer disposition would be postponed and that a consultation procedure regarding the transfer disposition would be conducted, no further measures were taken and the employee has continued to perform the previous duties up to the present, the employer’s notice of postponement must be viewed as an acknowledgment of procedural defects in the transfer disposition and as a notice of intent not to implement it, thereby constituting a withdrawal of the transfer disposition. Accordingly, there is no longer any need to maintain relief procedures with respect to the transfer disposition, and the relief interest is deemed to have extinguished.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the fact that, after the employer notified the employee that the transfer disposition would be postponed and that a consultation procedure regarding the transfer disposition would be conducted, no further measures were taken and the employee has continued to perform the previous duties up to the present, the employer’s notice of postponement must be viewed as an acknowledgment of procedural defects in the transfer disposition and as a notice of intent not to implement it, thereby constituting a withdrawal of the transfer disposition. Accordingly, there is no longer any need to maintain relief procedures with respect to the transfer disposition, and the relief interest is deemed to have extinguished. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Dismissal (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (notice of postponement of transfer), 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, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Leaving the Workplace · Refusal to Submit Written Explanation)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (notice of postponement of transfer) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Relief Interest (Notice of Postponement of Transfer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
