Corporate trends / Performance record
Cases on Unfair Dismissal Involving “Extinction of Relief Interest (Reinstatement to Original Position and Full Payment of Wages)” (Unfair Dismissal 234)
- Date2026/02/25 04:09
- Read 222
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (dismissal of the application) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (reinstatement to original position and full payment of wages).”
Adjudicating Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9178 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.27 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: The employer ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, and the employee is currently reinstated and working at the company. Therefore, all of the interests the employee sought to achieve through the remedy application have already been realized, there is no remaining “relief interest” that would justify maintaining the application, and in the absence of such relief interest, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal was justified.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. During the proceedings, however, the employer revoked the dismissal, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position, and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period. As the employee actually returned to work and is currently employed at the company, the Labor Relations Commission examined whether there was any further need to issue a remedy order for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a “relief interest” justifying continuation of the unfair dismissal remedy application still exists where the employer has revoked the dismissal, reinstated the employee to the original position, and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employer had ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position, had paid all amounts equivalent to the wages the employee would have received had they worked normally during the dismissal period, and that the employee had in fact been reinstated and was currently working at the company.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the purposes the employee sought to achieve through the unfair dismissal remedy application—reinstatement to the original position and restoration of wages—had already been fully realized.
The panel held that, since there was no remaining relief interest sufficient to justify maintaining the remedy application, there was no need to further examine the legitimacy of the dismissal itself. It therefore found it appropriate to dismiss the employee’s remedy application on the ground that the relief interest had been extinguished.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that if, while they are contesting an unfair dismissal, the employer withdraws the dismissal and fully provides reinstatement to the original position and payment of all amounts equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, the remedy proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission may be terminated on the ground that the relief interest has been extinguished. However, if issues remain regarding the method of wage calculation, deduction of interim earnings, or other monetary claims such as severance pay or unused annual leave, these may need to be pursued not before the Labor Relations Commission but through separate procedures such as civil litigation. Accordingly, before withdrawing the remedy application or allowing the proceedings to conclude, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if a dispute over the legitimacy of a dismissal is anticipated or the legal risk is assessed as high, it is worth noting that the case may be resolved at the Labor Relations Commission stage on the basis of extinction of relief interest by promptly revoking the dismissal and realizing the employee’s primary interests through reinstatement to the original position and payment of the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period. However, even if reinstatement to the original position is notified, delaying or only partially paying the wage-equivalent amount may instead escalate into additional disputes. Therefore, employers should implement follow-up measures collectively and clearly, including the reinstatement notice, payment of wages, and restoration of coverage under the four major social insurance schemes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, and the employee is currently reinstated and working at the company. Therefore, all of the interests the employee sought to achieve through the remedy application have already been realized, there is no remaining relief interest that would justify maintaining the application, and in the absence of such relief interest, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal was justified.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employer ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, and the employee is currently reinstated and working at the company. Therefore, all of the interests the employee sought to achieve through the remedy application have already been realized, there is no remaining relief interest that would justify maintaining the application, and in the absence of such relief interest, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal was justified. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Voluntary Resignation by Agreement)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (reinstatement to original position · full payment of wages), 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, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Voluntary Resignation by Agreement)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to extinction of relief interest (reinstatement to original position · full payment of wages) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Extinction of Relief Interest (Reinstatement to Original Position · Full Payment of Wages).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (dismissal of the application) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (reinstatement to original position and full payment of wages).”
Adjudicating Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9178 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.27 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue: The employer ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, and the employee is currently reinstated and working at the company. Therefore, all of the interests the employee sought to achieve through the remedy application have already been realized, there is no remaining “relief interest” that would justify maintaining the application, and in the absence of such relief interest, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal was justified.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. During the proceedings, however, the employer revoked the dismissal, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position, and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period. As the employee actually returned to work and is currently employed at the company, the Labor Relations Commission examined whether there was any further need to issue a remedy order for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a “relief interest” justifying continuation of the unfair dismissal remedy application still exists where the employer has revoked the dismissal, reinstated the employee to the original position, and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employer had ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position, had paid all amounts equivalent to the wages the employee would have received had they worked normally during the dismissal period, and that the employee had in fact been reinstated and was currently working at the company.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the purposes the employee sought to achieve through the unfair dismissal remedy application—reinstatement to the original position and restoration of wages—had already been fully realized.
The panel held that, since there was no remaining relief interest sufficient to justify maintaining the remedy application, there was no need to further examine the legitimacy of the dismissal itself. It therefore found it appropriate to dismiss the employee’s remedy application on the ground that the relief interest had been extinguished.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that if, while they are contesting an unfair dismissal, the employer withdraws the dismissal and fully provides reinstatement to the original position and payment of all amounts equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, the remedy proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission may be terminated on the ground that the relief interest has been extinguished. However, if issues remain regarding the method of wage calculation, deduction of interim earnings, or other monetary claims such as severance pay or unused annual leave, these may need to be pursued not before the Labor Relations Commission but through separate procedures such as civil litigation. Accordingly, before withdrawing the remedy application or allowing the proceedings to conclude, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, if a dispute over the legitimacy of a dismissal is anticipated or the legal risk is assessed as high, it is worth noting that the case may be resolved at the Labor Relations Commission stage on the basis of extinction of relief interest by promptly revoking the dismissal and realizing the employee’s primary interests through reinstatement to the original position and payment of the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period. However, even if reinstatement to the original position is notified, delaying or only partially paying the wage-equivalent amount may instead escalate into additional disputes. Therefore, employers should implement follow-up measures collectively and clearly, including the reinstatement notice, payment of wages, and restoration of coverage under the four major social insurance schemes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, and the employee is currently reinstated and working at the company. Therefore, all of the interests the employee sought to achieve through the remedy application have already been realized, there is no remaining relief interest that would justify maintaining the application, and in the absence of such relief interest, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal was justified.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employer ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, and the employee is currently reinstated and working at the company. Therefore, all of the interests the employee sought to achieve through the remedy application have already been realized, there is no remaining relief interest that would justify maintaining the application, and in the absence of such relief interest, there is no need to further examine whether the dismissal was justified. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Voluntary Resignation by Agreement)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (reinstatement to original position · full payment of wages), 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, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Existence of Dismissal (Alleged Voluntary Resignation by Agreement)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to extinction of relief interest (reinstatement to original position · full payment of wages) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Extinction of Relief Interest (Reinstatement to Original Position · Full Payment of Wages).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
