Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Extinction of Interest in Relief (Order for Reinstatement to Original Position) in Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 399)
- Date2026/04/24 04:09
- Read 161
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was maintained on the issue of “extinction of interest in relief (order for reinstatement to original position).”
Adjudicating body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1643 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case result: Initial decision maintained
Summary of key issue: The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order lacked sincerity. However, ① the employer, on [date omitted in original text] 2025, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission alleging unfair dismissal, the employer cancelled the dismissal and ordered reinstatement to the employee’s original position. The issue was whether, despite this, the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings could continue.
The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order was insincere and merely a formal gesture, whereas the employer contended that it had in fact cancelled the dismissal and reinstated the employee to the original position, so that there was no longer any interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the employer has cancelled the dismissal, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position, and the employee has actually returned to work, whether that reinstatement measure is merely a formal act, and whether the interest in seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal (interest in relief) still exists.”
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that: the employer expressly cancelled the dismissal dated 28 May 2025 and, by letter dated 17 June 2025, ordered reinstatement to the original position; the employee also expressed an intention to return, adjusted the starting date, and actually reported for work on 19 June 2025; the duties assigned after reinstatement were substantively the same as those before the dismissal, and there appeared to be no impediment to the employee’s return to the original position; and the employer maintained the employee’s insured status under employment insurance for a considerable period and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period.
In light of all these circumstances, the panel held that it was difficult to conclude that the employer’s order for reinstatement to the original position was merely a formal measure intended to evade the unfair dismissal remedy system of the Labor Relations Commission.
On this basis, the panel determined that the objectives the employee sought through the unfair dismissal remedy application—namely, exclusion of the effect of the dismissal, reinstatement to the original position, and payment of wages for the dismissal period—had already been achieved through the employer’s reinstatement order and wage payment. Accordingly, there was no longer any need to maintain the remedy proceedings, and the interest in relief had extinguished, so the employee’s claims were rejected.
This reasoning follows the Supreme Court’s established doctrine (e.g., 2000Du7***) that, where the employer withdraws the dismissal and orders reinstatement while the dismissal is being contested, the interest in relief generally extinguishes. It also reflects the existing case law that reinstatement to the original position does not require a “perfect recreation of the pre‑dismissal state,” but is satisfied where, in light of personnel order and managerial needs, the employer assigns duties that are the same as or similar to the previous ones within a reasonable scope.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that, if during the course of unfair dismissal remedy proceedings the employer cancels the dismissal, actually reinstates the employee to the original or an equivalent position, and regularizes the employee’s employment insurance status and payment of wages for the dismissal period, the “interest in relief” at the Labor Relations Commission stage may be deemed extinguished.
If, after reinstatement, disputes remain regarding wages, duties, or working conditions, these may need to be pursued through separate civil litigation or other legal procedures. The mere fact that “the reinstatement measure is unsatisfactory” will generally not suffice to maintain the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings.
Furthermore, to argue that the employer’s reinstatement order was merely a formal measure, it is important to secure sufficient objective evidence supporting a “lack of genuine intent to restore the status quo,” such as circumstances that in practice blocked the employee’s return, assignment of duties with no similarity whatsoever to the previous role, or a clear refusal to regularize employment insurance status or settle wages.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even while an unfair dismissal dispute is pending, if it is determined that the dismissal was excessive or if the employer wishes to avoid protracted litigation, expressly cancelling the dismissal and ordering reinstatement to the original position or to a reasonably similar role can be an effective means of resolving the dispute.
At that time, taking substantive restorative measures—such as restoring or maintaining the employee’s insured status under employment insurance and paying the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period—will make it easier to have the sincerity of the reinstatement recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
However, if the employer attempts reinstatement by forcing the employee to sign a new employment contract as a condition of return, or by imposing disadvantageous changes premised on the prior dismissal, there is a risk that such measures will not be regarded as compliance with a remedy order or will be evaluated as merely formal. Employers should therefore carefully review existing case law and Labor Relations Commission standards before taking action.
To prevail in this type of case, it is crucial to understand the legal principles on “extinction of interest in relief” and to design HR and labor‑management practices in a detailed manner so that the measures taken in cancelling the dismissal and reinstating the employee can be evaluated as substantive reinstatement to the original position. This point is reaffirmed by the Commission’s decisions and court precedents.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order lacked sincerity. However, ① the employer cancelled the dismissal dated 28 May 2025 and, by letter dated 17 June 2025, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position; ② the employee also expressed to the employer an intention to return and, after adjusting the date of return, actually reported for work on 19 June 2025; ③ the employee’s duties were no different from those before the dismissal, and there appeared to be no grounds to consider that there were any impediments to the employee’s performance of duties after reinstatement to the original position; and ④ the employer maintained the employee’s insured status under employment insurance for a considerable period and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period.
In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the employer’s order for reinstatement to the original position as merely a formal measure intended to evade the unfair dismissal remedy system of the Labor Relations Commission. The matters sought by the employee through the remedy application were realized through the employer’s reinstatement order and related measures, thereby achieving the purpose of the application. Accordingly, the interest in the remedy application has extinguished and no longer exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order lacked sincerity. However, ① the employer cancelled the dismissal dated 28 May 2025 and, by letter dated 17 June 2025, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position; ② the employee also expressed to the employer an intention to return and, after adjusting the date of return, actually reported for work on 19 June 2025; ③ the employee’s duties were no different from those before the dismissal, and there appeared to be no grounds to consider that there were any impediments to the employee’s performance of duties after reinstatement to the original position; and ④ the employer maintained the employee’s insured status under employment insurance for a considerable period and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period.
In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the employer’s order for reinstatement to the original position as merely a formal measure intended to evade the unfair dismissal remedy system of the Labor Relations Commission. The matters sought by the employee through the remedy application were realized through the employer’s reinstatement order and related measures, thereby achieving the purpose of the application. Accordingly, the interest in the remedy application has extinguished and no longer exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Non‑Fulfilment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Fixed‑Term Contract After Request for Extension)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of interest in relief (order for reinstatement to original position), 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 one of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Fixed‑Term Contract After Request for Extension),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to extinction of interest in relief (order for reinstatement to original position) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Interest in Relief (Order for Reinstatement to Original Position).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was maintained on the issue of “extinction of interest in relief (order for reinstatement to original position).”
Adjudicating body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1643 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case result: Initial decision maintained
Summary of key issue: The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order lacked sincerity. However, ① the employer, on [date omitted in original text] 2025, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission alleging unfair dismissal, the employer cancelled the dismissal and ordered reinstatement to the employee’s original position. The issue was whether, despite this, the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings could continue.
The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order was insincere and merely a formal gesture, whereas the employer contended that it had in fact cancelled the dismissal and reinstated the employee to the original position, so that there was no longer any interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the employer has cancelled the dismissal, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position, and the employee has actually returned to work, whether that reinstatement measure is merely a formal act, and whether the interest in seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal (interest in relief) still exists.”
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that: the employer expressly cancelled the dismissal dated 28 May 2025 and, by letter dated 17 June 2025, ordered reinstatement to the original position; the employee also expressed an intention to return, adjusted the starting date, and actually reported for work on 19 June 2025; the duties assigned after reinstatement were substantively the same as those before the dismissal, and there appeared to be no impediment to the employee’s return to the original position; and the employer maintained the employee’s insured status under employment insurance for a considerable period and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period.
In light of all these circumstances, the panel held that it was difficult to conclude that the employer’s order for reinstatement to the original position was merely a formal measure intended to evade the unfair dismissal remedy system of the Labor Relations Commission.
On this basis, the panel determined that the objectives the employee sought through the unfair dismissal remedy application—namely, exclusion of the effect of the dismissal, reinstatement to the original position, and payment of wages for the dismissal period—had already been achieved through the employer’s reinstatement order and wage payment. Accordingly, there was no longer any need to maintain the remedy proceedings, and the interest in relief had extinguished, so the employee’s claims were rejected.
This reasoning follows the Supreme Court’s established doctrine (e.g., 2000Du7***) that, where the employer withdraws the dismissal and orders reinstatement while the dismissal is being contested, the interest in relief generally extinguishes. It also reflects the existing case law that reinstatement to the original position does not require a “perfect recreation of the pre‑dismissal state,” but is satisfied where, in light of personnel order and managerial needs, the employer assigns duties that are the same as or similar to the previous ones within a reasonable scope.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it should be noted that, if during the course of unfair dismissal remedy proceedings the employer cancels the dismissal, actually reinstates the employee to the original or an equivalent position, and regularizes the employee’s employment insurance status and payment of wages for the dismissal period, the “interest in relief” at the Labor Relations Commission stage may be deemed extinguished.
If, after reinstatement, disputes remain regarding wages, duties, or working conditions, these may need to be pursued through separate civil litigation or other legal procedures. The mere fact that “the reinstatement measure is unsatisfactory” will generally not suffice to maintain the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings.
Furthermore, to argue that the employer’s reinstatement order was merely a formal measure, it is important to secure sufficient objective evidence supporting a “lack of genuine intent to restore the status quo,” such as circumstances that in practice blocked the employee’s return, assignment of duties with no similarity whatsoever to the previous role, or a clear refusal to regularize employment insurance status or settle wages.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even while an unfair dismissal dispute is pending, if it is determined that the dismissal was excessive or if the employer wishes to avoid protracted litigation, expressly cancelling the dismissal and ordering reinstatement to the original position or to a reasonably similar role can be an effective means of resolving the dispute.
At that time, taking substantive restorative measures—such as restoring or maintaining the employee’s insured status under employment insurance and paying the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period—will make it easier to have the sincerity of the reinstatement recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
However, if the employer attempts reinstatement by forcing the employee to sign a new employment contract as a condition of return, or by imposing disadvantageous changes premised on the prior dismissal, there is a risk that such measures will not be regarded as compliance with a remedy order or will be evaluated as merely formal. Employers should therefore carefully review existing case law and Labor Relations Commission standards before taking action.
To prevail in this type of case, it is crucial to understand the legal principles on “extinction of interest in relief” and to design HR and labor‑management practices in a detailed manner so that the measures taken in cancelling the dismissal and reinstating the employee can be evaluated as substantive reinstatement to the original position. This point is reaffirmed by the Commission’s decisions and court precedents.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order lacked sincerity. However, ① the employer cancelled the dismissal dated 28 May 2025 and, by letter dated 17 June 2025, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position; ② the employee also expressed to the employer an intention to return and, after adjusting the date of return, actually reported for work on 19 June 2025; ③ the employee’s duties were no different from those before the dismissal, and there appeared to be no grounds to consider that there were any impediments to the employee’s performance of duties after reinstatement to the original position; and ④ the employer maintained the employee’s insured status under employment insurance for a considerable period and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period.
In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the employer’s order for reinstatement to the original position as merely a formal measure intended to evade the unfair dismissal remedy system of the Labor Relations Commission. The matters sought by the employee through the remedy application were realized through the employer’s reinstatement order and related measures, thereby achieving the purpose of the application. Accordingly, the interest in the remedy application has extinguished and no longer exists.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order lacked sincerity. However, ① the employer cancelled the dismissal dated 28 May 2025 and, by letter dated 17 June 2025, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position; ② the employee also expressed to the employer an intention to return and, after adjusting the date of return, actually reported for work on 19 June 2025; ③ the employee’s duties were no different from those before the dismissal, and there appeared to be no grounds to consider that there were any impediments to the employee’s performance of duties after reinstatement to the original position; and ④ the employer maintained the employee’s insured status under employment insurance for a considerable period and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period.
In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the employer’s order for reinstatement to the original position as merely a formal measure intended to evade the unfair dismissal remedy system of the Labor Relations Commission. The matters sought by the employee through the remedy application were realized through the employer’s reinstatement order and related measures, thereby achieving the purpose of the application. Accordingly, the interest in the remedy application has extinguished and no longer exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Non‑Fulfilment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Fixed‑Term Contract After Request for Extension)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of interest in relief (order for reinstatement to original position), 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 one of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Fixed‑Term Contract After Request for Extension),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to extinction of interest in relief (order for reinstatement to original position) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Interest in Relief (Order for Reinstatement to Original Position).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
