Corporate trends / Performance record
Mischaracterization of Dismissal as Mandatory Retirement Before Retirement Age: Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 342)
- Date2026/04/03 04:09
- Read 167
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “mischaracterization of dismissal (mandatory retirement before retirement age).”
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae3 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.25 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issue:
A. Whether the termination of the employment relationship in this case constitutes a dismissal
The termination of the employment relationship in this case occurred before the employee reached the retirement age prescribed in the work rules, and therefore constitutes a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee’s employment relationship was terminated before reaching the retirement age set out in the work rules. The company treated this as if it were retirement at retirement age or mandatory retirement, while the employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the termination of the employment relationship in this case substantively constituted a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent, and whether the grounds and procedures for the dismissal complied with the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether the company’s unilateral termination of the employment relationship, before the employee reached the retirement age prescribed in the work rules, constitutes “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act rather than automatic termination upon reaching retirement age, and whether such dismissal was supported by just cause and carried out in accordance with lawful procedures (in particular, written notice).
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that the employer terminated the employment relationship before the employee reached the retirement age set out in the work rules; that, despite the absence of any automatic termination ground such as retirement age, expiration of a fixed term, or death, the employer unilaterally ended the employment contract; and that the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
In light of these factors, the Commission determined that the termination of the employment relationship in this case did not constitute mandatory retirement upon reaching retirement age, but rather a dismissal against the employee’s will.
The dismissal in this case was held to be unfair because there was no just cause for dismissal and there was a serious procedural defect arising from the employer’s violation of the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the company uses terms such as “retirement,” “mandatory retirement,” or “expiration of contract,” if in substance the employment relationship is terminated unilaterally by the employer, it may be challenged as a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.
In particular, if you have been unilaterally treated as having retired despite not having reached retirement age, you should carefully check whether the reasons and timing of the dismissal were notified in writing and whether there is a basis in the work rules or collective agreement. Based on this review, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to operate the system in a way that clearly distinguishes between grounds for automatic termination of the employment relationship (such as retirement age and expiration of a fixed term) and dismissals based on the employer’s discretion.
If there is a need to terminate the employment relationship before retirement age, the employer must carefully examine whether the case falls under any of the dismissal grounds stipulated in the work rules or collective agreement, and must strictly comply with the procedure under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by delivering written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.
To prevent disputes of this kind, employers are advised to obtain advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& and to revise provisions on retirement age, mandatory retirement, grounds for dismissal, and dismissal procedures in line with legal principles, as well as to provide training for HR practitioners to manage unfair dismissal risks in advance.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the termination of the employment relationship in this case constitutes a dismissal
The termination of the employment relationship in this case occurred before the employee reached the retirement age prescribed in the work rules, and therefore constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal in this case was justified (in terms of grounds and procedure)
The dismissal in this case is unfair because there was no just cause for dismissal and the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the termination of the employment relationship in this case constitutes a dismissal
The termination of the employment relationship in this case occurred before the employee reached the retirement age prescribed in the work rules, and therefore constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal in this case was justified (in terms of grounds and procedure)
The dismissal in this case is unfair because there was no just cause for dismissal and the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Verbal Resignation by Restaurant Worker)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, mischaracterization of dismissal (mandatory retirement before retirement age), 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, “Expression of Intent to Resign (Verbal Resignation by Restaurant Worker) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to mischaracterization of dismissal (mandatory retirement before retirement age) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Mischaracterization of Dismissal (Mandatory Retirement Before Retirement Age).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “mischaracterization of dismissal (mandatory retirement before retirement age).”
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae3 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.25 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issue:
A. Whether the termination of the employment relationship in this case constitutes a dismissal
The termination of the employment relationship in this case occurred before the employee reached the retirement age prescribed in the work rules, and therefore constitutes a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee’s employment relationship was terminated before reaching the retirement age set out in the work rules. The company treated this as if it were retirement at retirement age or mandatory retirement, while the employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the termination of the employment relationship in this case substantively constituted a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intent, and whether the grounds and procedures for the dismissal complied with the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether the company’s unilateral termination of the employment relationship, before the employee reached the retirement age prescribed in the work rules, constitutes “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act rather than automatic termination upon reaching retirement age, and whether such dismissal was supported by just cause and carried out in accordance with lawful procedures (in particular, written notice).
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that the employer terminated the employment relationship before the employee reached the retirement age set out in the work rules; that, despite the absence of any automatic termination ground such as retirement age, expiration of a fixed term, or death, the employer unilaterally ended the employment contract; and that the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
In light of these factors, the Commission determined that the termination of the employment relationship in this case did not constitute mandatory retirement upon reaching retirement age, but rather a dismissal against the employee’s will.
The dismissal in this case was held to be unfair because there was no just cause for dismissal and there was a serious procedural defect arising from the employer’s violation of the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the company uses terms such as “retirement,” “mandatory retirement,” or “expiration of contract,” if in substance the employment relationship is terminated unilaterally by the employer, it may be challenged as a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.
In particular, if you have been unilaterally treated as having retired despite not having reached retirement age, you should carefully check whether the reasons and timing of the dismissal were notified in writing and whether there is a basis in the work rules or collective agreement. Based on this review, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to operate the system in a way that clearly distinguishes between grounds for automatic termination of the employment relationship (such as retirement age and expiration of a fixed term) and dismissals based on the employer’s discretion.
If there is a need to terminate the employment relationship before retirement age, the employer must carefully examine whether the case falls under any of the dismissal grounds stipulated in the work rules or collective agreement, and must strictly comply with the procedure under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by delivering written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.
To prevent disputes of this kind, employers are advised to obtain advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& and to revise provisions on retirement age, mandatory retirement, grounds for dismissal, and dismissal procedures in line with legal principles, as well as to provide training for HR practitioners to manage unfair dismissal risks in advance.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the termination of the employment relationship in this case constitutes a dismissal
The termination of the employment relationship in this case occurred before the employee reached the retirement age prescribed in the work rules, and therefore constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal in this case was justified (in terms of grounds and procedure)
The dismissal in this case is unfair because there was no just cause for dismissal and the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the termination of the employment relationship in this case constitutes a dismissal
The termination of the employment relationship in this case occurred before the employee reached the retirement age prescribed in the work rules, and therefore constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal in this case was justified (in terms of grounds and procedure)
The dismissal in this case is unfair because there was no just cause for dismissal and the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Verbal Resignation by Restaurant Worker)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, mischaracterization of dismissal (mandatory retirement before retirement age), 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, “Expression of Intent to Resign (Verbal Resignation by Restaurant Worker) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to mischaracterization of dismissal (mandatory retirement before retirement age) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Mischaracterization of Dismissal (Mandatory Retirement Before Retirement Age).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
