Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Repeated Reinstatement Orders)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 251)
- Date2026/03/03 04:04
- Read 188
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “extinction of interest in relief (repeated reinstatement orders).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission
2025부해1511 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.19 · Result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues: (i) The employer issued three separate reinstatement orders to the employee; (ii) the employer paid the employee an amount equivalent to wages for the period of dismissal; (iii) there were no circumstances indicating that the employer’s reinstatement orders were merely a formal measure to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal; and (iv) there were no circumstances indicating that there were any particular obstacles preventing the employee from actually returning to his/her original position. In light of these factors, the application for remedy was held to lack any remaining interest in relief.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation in which, during the course of unfair dismissal proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, the employer issued multiple reinstatement orders to the employee and paid an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period. Although the employee sought to maintain the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the Central Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on whether any interest in relief continued to exist.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the employer has withdrawn the unfair dismissal, repeatedly ordered the employee’s reinstatement, and paid an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, does the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal retain any interest in relief?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the employer had issued three separate reinstatement orders to the employee; the employer had paid an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; there were no circumstances indicating that the employer’s reinstatement orders were merely a formal measure to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal; and there were no circumstances indicating that there were any particular obstacles preventing the employee from actually returning to his/her original position.
In light of the above, the panel evaluated that any substantive relief the employee could obtain through the Labor Relations Commission had already been achieved through the reinstatement orders and payment of wages. Accordingly, applying the legal principle articulated by the Supreme Court and lower courts—that where a dismissal has been withdrawn and the employee is in a position to be reinstated, the purpose of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be deemed to have been achieved—
the panel held that, notwithstanding the employee’s contention that the dismissal was unfair, there was no longer any need to maintain the proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore the application for remedy lacked any remaining interest in relief.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if the employer has withdrawn the dismissal, created a situation in which actual reinstatement is possible, and paid an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission may be dismissed for lack of interest in relief. However, if the reinstatement order is merely a formal measure intended to avoid monetary compensation, or if there are circumstances making actual return to work practically impossible, the employee must specifically prove such circumstances and argue that an interest in relief still exists.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an unfair dismissal dispute arises, it is important to substantively restore the status quo ante by expressly withdrawing the dismissal, issuing multiple reinstatement orders to the employee, and faithfully paying an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period. To avoid any doubt as to the genuineness of the reinstatement orders, the employer should clearly document objective implementation measures such as concrete work‑assignment plans and arrangements regarding wages and the four major social insurances. Doing so increases the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the extinction of interest in relief.
In this type of case, both employees and employers should clearly understand that the purpose of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is “reinstatement to the original position and payment of an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period,” and that the existence or non‑existence of an interest in relief is the key criterion at the Labor Relations Commission stage for determining whether the application will be dismissed. It is advisable to familiarize oneself in advance with the specific legal principles applied in Labor Relations Commission practice and case law, and to consult with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to develop an appropriate response strategy.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of: (i) the fact that the employer issued three separate reinstatement orders to the employee; (ii) the fact that the employer paid the employee an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; (iii) the absence of any circumstances indicating that the employer’s order for reinstatement to the original position was merely formal; and (iv) the absence of any circumstances indicating that there were particular obstacles preventing the employee from actually returning to his/her original position, the application for remedy was held to lack any interest in relief.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of: (i) the fact that the employer issued three separate reinstatement orders to the employee; (ii) the fact that the employer paid the employee an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; (iii) the absence of any circumstances indicating that the employer’s order for reinstatement to the original position was merely formal; and (iv) the absence of any circumstances indicating that there were particular obstacles preventing the employee from actually returning to his/her original position, the application for remedy was held to lack any interest in relief. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of interest in relief (repeated reinstatement orders), 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, “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer of Workplace Bullying Perpetrator)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of interest in relief (repeated reinstatement orders) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Interest in Relief (Repeated Reinstatement Orders).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “extinction of interest in relief (repeated reinstatement orders).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission
2025부해1511 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.19 · Result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues: (i) The employer issued three separate reinstatement orders to the employee; (ii) the employer paid the employee an amount equivalent to wages for the period of dismissal; (iii) there were no circumstances indicating that the employer’s reinstatement orders were merely a formal measure to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal; and (iv) there were no circumstances indicating that there were any particular obstacles preventing the employee from actually returning to his/her original position. In light of these factors, the application for remedy was held to lack any remaining interest in relief.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation in which, during the course of unfair dismissal proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, the employer issued multiple reinstatement orders to the employee and paid an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period. Although the employee sought to maintain the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the Central Labor Relations Commission focused its determination on whether any interest in relief continued to exist.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the employer has withdrawn the unfair dismissal, repeatedly ordered the employee’s reinstatement, and paid an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, does the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal retain any interest in relief?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that: the employer had issued three separate reinstatement orders to the employee; the employer had paid an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; there were no circumstances indicating that the employer’s reinstatement orders were merely a formal measure to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal; and there were no circumstances indicating that there were any particular obstacles preventing the employee from actually returning to his/her original position.
In light of the above, the panel evaluated that any substantive relief the employee could obtain through the Labor Relations Commission had already been achieved through the reinstatement orders and payment of wages. Accordingly, applying the legal principle articulated by the Supreme Court and lower courts—that where a dismissal has been withdrawn and the employee is in a position to be reinstated, the purpose of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be deemed to have been achieved—
the panel held that, notwithstanding the employee’s contention that the dismissal was unfair, there was no longer any need to maintain the proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore the application for remedy lacked any remaining interest in relief.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if the employer has withdrawn the dismissal, created a situation in which actual reinstatement is possible, and paid an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, the application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission may be dismissed for lack of interest in relief. However, if the reinstatement order is merely a formal measure intended to avoid monetary compensation, or if there are circumstances making actual return to work practically impossible, the employee must specifically prove such circumstances and argue that an interest in relief still exists.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when an unfair dismissal dispute arises, it is important to substantively restore the status quo ante by expressly withdrawing the dismissal, issuing multiple reinstatement orders to the employee, and faithfully paying an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period. To avoid any doubt as to the genuineness of the reinstatement orders, the employer should clearly document objective implementation measures such as concrete work‑assignment plans and arrangements regarding wages and the four major social insurances. Doing so increases the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will recognize the extinction of interest in relief.
In this type of case, both employees and employers should clearly understand that the purpose of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is “reinstatement to the original position and payment of an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period,” and that the existence or non‑existence of an interest in relief is the key criterion at the Labor Relations Commission stage for determining whether the application will be dismissed. It is advisable to familiarize oneself in advance with the specific legal principles applied in Labor Relations Commission practice and case law, and to consult with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law& to develop an appropriate response strategy.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of: (i) the fact that the employer issued three separate reinstatement orders to the employee; (ii) the fact that the employer paid the employee an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; (iii) the absence of any circumstances indicating that the employer’s order for reinstatement to the original position was merely formal; and (iv) the absence of any circumstances indicating that there were particular obstacles preventing the employee from actually returning to his/her original position, the application for remedy was held to lack any interest in relief.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of: (i) the fact that the employer issued three separate reinstatement orders to the employee; (ii) the fact that the employer paid the employee an amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period; (iii) the absence of any circumstances indicating that the employer’s order for reinstatement to the original position was merely formal; and (iv) the absence of any circumstances indicating that there were particular obstacles preventing the employee from actually returning to his/her original position, the application for remedy was held to lack any interest in relief. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of interest in relief (repeated reinstatement orders), 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, “‘Justifiability of Transfer (Transfer of Workplace Bullying Perpetrator)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of interest in relief (repeated reinstatement orders) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Interest in Relief (Repeated Reinstatement Orders).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
