Corporate trends / Performance record
Extinction of Remedial Interest (Genuine Order for Reinstatement to Original Position) in Unfair Dismissal Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 139)
- Date2026/01/23 04:04
- Read 217
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of remedial interest (genuine order for reinstatement to original position).”
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision where, on the issue of “extinction of remedial interest (genuine order for reinstatement to original position),” the employer prevailed and the application was dismissed.
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae979 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 31, 2025 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employer issued multiple orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position, and there was no basis to view these reinstatement orders as lacking genuineness, nor did there appear to be any impediment to the employee’s actual reinstatement. Accordingly, the purpose of the remedy application had been achieved by the reinstatement order, and therefore no remedial interest existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. Subsequently, the employer issued several orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position. The issue was whether the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings could continue despite these reinstatement orders.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission determined the existence or non-existence of remedial interest by focusing on the genuineness of the employer’s reinstatement orders and the actual feasibility of reinstatement. It then reached a conclusion consistent with the line of decisions on remedial interest frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the employer has effectively withdrawn the dismissal and has issued multiple genuine orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position, does remedial interest in the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal still exist?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the employer had issued multiple orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position, that there were no circumstances suggesting that these orders were merely formal or sham measures, and that it was difficult to find any objective impediment to the employee’s actual reinstatement.
Accordingly, it held that the remedial purpose of the employee, who had been contesting the validity of the dismissal and seeking reinstatement to the original position, had already been achieved by the reinstatement orders. Therefore, there was no longer any “remedial interest” warranting continuation of the Labor Relations Commission remedy proceedings.
Consequently, the Commission found it unnecessary to further examine whether the dismissal constituted a refusal to renew a fixed-term employment contract, whether the employee had a legitimate expectation of renewal, or whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew. The application for a remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed on the ground that remedial interest did not exist.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employer withdraws a dismissal and orders reinstatement to the original position while the employee is contesting an unfair dismissal, it should be noted, in light of Supreme Court precedents and this decision, that the purpose of the remedy application is, in principle, deemed to have been achieved and remedial interest is considered extinguished.
However, if the reinstatement order is merely a formal measure intended to avoid monetary compensation, or if reinstatement is substantively impossible or offered only on significantly disadvantageous terms such that its genuineness is doubtful, the employee must actively substantiate those specific circumstances with supporting evidence.
If you are unsure whether to accept a reinstatement order, you should also consider potential claims for wages corresponding to the dismissal period, and the possibility of subsequent personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals or transfers. It is advisable to consult in advance with a labor attorney on how to coordinate and conduct Labor Relations Commission proceedings and civil litigation in parallel.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, a dismissal dispute in progress can be brought to an early close by withdrawing the dismissal and issuing an order for reinstatement to the original position. At this point, the key is to ensure that no doubts arise as to the “genuineness” of the reinstatement order.
The method of notifying reinstatement, the timing of return, the working conditions, and the actual plan for assigning work should be clearly set out. If there have been changes in personnel structure or the work environment since the dismissal, the employer should document the grounds showing that an appropriate position has been assigned in light of those changes.
In addition, even after a reinstatement order, unresolved issues may remain, such as payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period and correction of social insurance enrollment status. Employers should systematically design a settlement plan in light of Labor Relations Commission decisions and the purpose of monetary compensation systems under the Labor Standards Act. If future redundancy dismissals or refusals to renew contracts become necessary, employers should also make prior preparations to satisfy the separate requirements of justifiability.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer issued multiple orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position, and there was no basis to view these reinstatement orders as lacking genuineness, nor did there appear to be any impediment to the employee’s actual reinstatement. Accordingly, the purpose of the remedy application had been achieved by the reinstatement orders, and therefore no remedial interest existed. As long as remedial interest does not exist, there is no need to further examine whether a legitimate expectation of renewal existed or whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employer issued multiple orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position, and there was no basis to view these reinstatement orders as lacking genuineness, nor did there appear to be any impediment to the employee’s actual reinstatement. Accordingly, the purpose of the remedy application had been achieved by the reinstatement orders, and therefore no remedial interest existed. As long as remedial interest does not exist, there is no need to further examine whether a legitimate expectation of renewal existed or whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of remedial interest (genuine order for reinstatement to original position), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Building Management/Cleaning),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of remedial interest (genuine order for reinstatement to original position) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Extinction of Remedial Interest (Genuine Order for Reinstatement to Original Position).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision where, on the issue of “extinction of remedial interest (genuine order for reinstatement to original position),” the employer prevailed and the application was dismissed.
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae979 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 31, 2025 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employer issued multiple orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position, and there was no basis to view these reinstatement orders as lacking genuineness, nor did there appear to be any impediment to the employee’s actual reinstatement. Accordingly, the purpose of the remedy application had been achieved by the reinstatement order, and therefore no remedial interest existed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. Subsequently, the employer issued several orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position. The issue was whether the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings could continue despite these reinstatement orders.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission determined the existence or non-existence of remedial interest by focusing on the genuineness of the employer’s reinstatement orders and the actual feasibility of reinstatement. It then reached a conclusion consistent with the line of decisions on remedial interest frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the employer has effectively withdrawn the dismissal and has issued multiple genuine orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position, does remedial interest in the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal still exist?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the employer had issued multiple orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position, that there were no circumstances suggesting that these orders were merely formal or sham measures, and that it was difficult to find any objective impediment to the employee’s actual reinstatement.
Accordingly, it held that the remedial purpose of the employee, who had been contesting the validity of the dismissal and seeking reinstatement to the original position, had already been achieved by the reinstatement orders. Therefore, there was no longer any “remedial interest” warranting continuation of the Labor Relations Commission remedy proceedings.
Consequently, the Commission found it unnecessary to further examine whether the dismissal constituted a refusal to renew a fixed-term employment contract, whether the employee had a legitimate expectation of renewal, or whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew. The application for a remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed on the ground that remedial interest did not exist.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employer withdraws a dismissal and orders reinstatement to the original position while the employee is contesting an unfair dismissal, it should be noted, in light of Supreme Court precedents and this decision, that the purpose of the remedy application is, in principle, deemed to have been achieved and remedial interest is considered extinguished.
However, if the reinstatement order is merely a formal measure intended to avoid monetary compensation, or if reinstatement is substantively impossible or offered only on significantly disadvantageous terms such that its genuineness is doubtful, the employee must actively substantiate those specific circumstances with supporting evidence.
If you are unsure whether to accept a reinstatement order, you should also consider potential claims for wages corresponding to the dismissal period, and the possibility of subsequent personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals or transfers. It is advisable to consult in advance with a labor attorney on how to coordinate and conduct Labor Relations Commission proceedings and civil litigation in parallel.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, a dismissal dispute in progress can be brought to an early close by withdrawing the dismissal and issuing an order for reinstatement to the original position. At this point, the key is to ensure that no doubts arise as to the “genuineness” of the reinstatement order.
The method of notifying reinstatement, the timing of return, the working conditions, and the actual plan for assigning work should be clearly set out. If there have been changes in personnel structure or the work environment since the dismissal, the employer should document the grounds showing that an appropriate position has been assigned in light of those changes.
In addition, even after a reinstatement order, unresolved issues may remain, such as payment of wages corresponding to the dismissal period and correction of social insurance enrollment status. Employers should systematically design a settlement plan in light of Labor Relations Commission decisions and the purpose of monetary compensation systems under the Labor Standards Act. If future redundancy dismissals or refusals to renew contracts become necessary, employers should also make prior preparations to satisfy the separate requirements of justifiability.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer issued multiple orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position, and there was no basis to view these reinstatement orders as lacking genuineness, nor did there appear to be any impediment to the employee’s actual reinstatement. Accordingly, the purpose of the remedy application had been achieved by the reinstatement orders, and therefore no remedial interest existed. As long as remedial interest does not exist, there is no need to further examine whether a legitimate expectation of renewal existed or whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employer issued multiple orders for reinstatement to the employee’s original position, and there was no basis to view these reinstatement orders as lacking genuineness, nor did there appear to be any impediment to the employee’s actual reinstatement. Accordingly, the purpose of the remedy application had been achieved by the reinstatement orders, and therefore no remedial interest existed. As long as remedial interest does not exist, there is no need to further examine whether a legitimate expectation of renewal existed or whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of remedial interest (genuine order for reinstatement to original position), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Building Management/Cleaning),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of remedial interest (genuine order for reinstatement to original position) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Extinction of Remedial Interest (Genuine Order for Reinstatement to Original Position).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
