Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Expectation of Re‑Employment After Mandatory Retirement (Non‑Implementation of Re‑Employment Guidelines)” (Unfair Dismissal 453)
- Date2026/05/15 04:08
- Read 100
This case on the issue of “expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement (non‑implementation of re‑employment guidelines)” ended with a full victory for the employee.
Adjudicating body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae122 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case result: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement exists: In light of the fact that the re‑employment guidelines contain provisions on re‑employment after mandatory retirement, and that the employer has in fact been re‑employing employees whose mandatory retirement age has arrived in accordance with those guidelines, the employee is recognized as having an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employment relationship was terminated on the ground that the employee had reached the mandatory retirement age, raising the issue of whether the employee was entitled to re‑employment after retirement under the company’s re‑employment guidelines. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the existence of an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement and the legitimacy of the refusal to re‑employ, based on the employer’s established practice of re‑employing employees who had reached the mandatory retirement age and the content of the re‑employment guidelines.
Labor Law Firm Law& wishes to emphasize that, in disputes involving mandatory retirement, redundancy dismissals, and re‑employment, the interpretation of re‑employment guidelines, collective agreements, and rules of employment is crucial. Early response with the assistance of experts who are well‑versed in Labor Relations Commission practice is particularly important in this type of case.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “Whether an employee scheduled for mandatory retirement has an expectation of re‑employment after retirement based on the company’s re‑employment guidelines and established practice, and whether it is lawful for the company to refuse re‑employment solely on the ground that the employee did not submit a re‑employment application form.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case held that, given that the re‑employment guidelines contain provisions on re‑employment after mandatory retirement, and that a practice has been established whereby the employer has actually re‑employed employees who have reached the mandatory retirement age in accordance with those guidelines, an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement is recognized for the employee.
In particular, although Article 8 of the re‑employment guidelines imposes an obligation on the employer to first ascertain whether the employee wishes to be re‑employed, the employer failed to actively fulfill this obligation. Moreover, despite the employee having clearly expressed an intention to be re‑employed in September and November 2025, the company did not proceed with the subsequent procedures (acceptance of the application form and review of grounds for restriction). The failure to submit a re‑employment application form was therefore not attributable to the employee, but rather resulted from the employer’s misunderstanding of the legal framework.
On these grounds, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case, although formally based on the employee’s reaching the mandatory retirement age, was in substance an unjust refusal to re‑employ after retirement and thus constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees in similar situations should first confirm whether their company has re‑employment guidelines or established practices regarding re‑employment after mandatory retirement, and whether such guidelines or practices can be applied to them on the same terms.
If you wish to be re‑employed, you should clearly communicate your intention to be re‑employed not only verbally but also in a manner that leaves evidence, such as by email, text message, or official letter. Doing so will make it easier before the Labor Relations Commission to prove both the existence of an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement and the employer’s procedural violations.
Furthermore, if the company does not inquire about your wish to be re‑employed or does not provide the relevant application forms, you should record the circumstances and your responses (for example, by notes or recordings). These records can later serve as important evidence to point out the employer’s procedural violations and legal misunderstandings in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Employers should clearly establish and refine the content of their rules of employment and re‑employment guidelines relating to mandatory retirement, re‑employment after retirement, and redundancy dismissals, and should document that they are actually implementing the relevant procedures (ascertaining the employee’s wish for re‑employment, accepting application forms, and reviewing grounds for restriction on re‑employment) so that this can be objectively demonstrated.
In particular, note that the obligation to ascertain whether the employee wishes to be re‑employed and the subsequent review of grounds for restricting re‑employment are separate stages. An approach that seeks to avoid responsibility merely by asserting that “the employee did not apply” is unlikely to be accepted by the Labor Relations Commission.
Even if the employment relationship is terminated on the ground that the employee has reached the mandatory retirement age, where internal guidelines or practices have created an expectation of re‑employment after retirement, any refusal to re‑employ will be reviewed, similarly to a refusal to renew a fixed‑term contract, to determine whether there is a “reasonable ground” for such refusal. Accordingly, if there are grounds for refusing re‑employment, those grounds should be specifically organized in advance, and issues such as fairness compared to other employees, the absence of discrimination, and business necessity should be carefully reviewed.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement exists: In light of the fact that the re‑employment guidelines contain provisions on re‑employment after mandatory retirement, and that the employer has re‑employed employees whose mandatory retirement age has arrived in accordance with those guidelines, the employee is recognized as having an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement.
B. Whether there is a reasonable ground for refusing re‑employment: As a rule, under the re‑employment guidelines, procedures for re‑employment after mandatory retirement are to be carried out when the employee submits an application. However, the obligation under Article 8 of the re‑employment guidelines to ascertain whether the employee wishes to be re‑employed, and the review under Article 9 of whether any grounds exist for restricting re‑employment after receipt of the re‑employment application form, must be regarded as separate stages. In particular, there was a defect in that the employer did not more actively fulfill the procedural obligation to ascertain the employee’s wish for re‑employment, and, despite the employee having expressed an intention to be re‑employed in September and November 2025, the employer proceeded to dismiss the employee upon reaching the mandatory retirement age without carrying out the subsequent procedures. This cannot be viewed as a failure to submit a re‑employment application form attributable to the employee, but rather as resulting from the employer’s misunderstanding of the legal framework. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that there was a reasonable ground for refusing re‑employment.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement exists: In light of the fact that the re‑employment guidelines contain provisions on re‑employment after mandatory retirement, and that the employer has re‑employed employees whose mandatory retirement age has arrived in accordance with those guidelines, the employee is recognized as having an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement.
B. Whether there is a reasonable ground for refusing re‑employment: As a rule, under the re‑employment guidelines, procedures for re‑employment after mandatory retirement are to be carried out when the employee submits an application. However, the obligation under Article 8 of the re‑employment guidelines to ascertain whether the employee wishes to be re‑employed, and the review under Article 9 of whether any grounds exist for restricting re‑employment after receipt of the re‑employment application form, must be regarded as separate stages. In particular, there was a defect in that the employer did not more actively fulfill the procedural obligation to ascertain the employee’s wish for re‑employment, and, despite the employee having expressed an intention to be re‑employed in September and November 2025, the employer proceeded to dismiss the employee upon reaching the mandatory retirement age without carrying out the subsequent procedures. This cannot be viewed as a failure to submit a re‑employment application form attributable to the employee, but rather as resulting from the employer’s misunderstanding of the legal framework. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that there was a reasonable ground for refusing re‑employment. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissal of application
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement (non‑implementation of re‑employment guidelines), dismissal at mandatory retirement, refusal of re‑employment, 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Bicycle Drunk Driving)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement (non‑implementation of re‑employment guidelines) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Re‑Employment After Mandatory Retirement (Non‑Implementation of Re‑Employment Guidelines).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Adjudicating body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae122 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.25 · Case result: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement exists: In light of the fact that the re‑employment guidelines contain provisions on re‑employment after mandatory retirement, and that the employer has in fact been re‑employing employees whose mandatory retirement age has arrived in accordance with those guidelines, the employee is recognized as having an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employment relationship was terminated on the ground that the employee had reached the mandatory retirement age, raising the issue of whether the employee was entitled to re‑employment after retirement under the company’s re‑employment guidelines. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the existence of an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement and the legitimacy of the refusal to re‑employ, based on the employer’s established practice of re‑employing employees who had reached the mandatory retirement age and the content of the re‑employment guidelines.
Labor Law Firm Law& wishes to emphasize that, in disputes involving mandatory retirement, redundancy dismissals, and re‑employment, the interpretation of re‑employment guidelines, collective agreements, and rules of employment is crucial. Early response with the assistance of experts who are well‑versed in Labor Relations Commission practice is particularly important in this type of case.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “Whether an employee scheduled for mandatory retirement has an expectation of re‑employment after retirement based on the company’s re‑employment guidelines and established practice, and whether it is lawful for the company to refuse re‑employment solely on the ground that the employee did not submit a re‑employment application form.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case held that, given that the re‑employment guidelines contain provisions on re‑employment after mandatory retirement, and that a practice has been established whereby the employer has actually re‑employed employees who have reached the mandatory retirement age in accordance with those guidelines, an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement is recognized for the employee.
In particular, although Article 8 of the re‑employment guidelines imposes an obligation on the employer to first ascertain whether the employee wishes to be re‑employed, the employer failed to actively fulfill this obligation. Moreover, despite the employee having clearly expressed an intention to be re‑employed in September and November 2025, the company did not proceed with the subsequent procedures (acceptance of the application form and review of grounds for restriction). The failure to submit a re‑employment application form was therefore not attributable to the employee, but rather resulted from the employer’s misunderstanding of the legal framework.
On these grounds, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case, although formally based on the employee’s reaching the mandatory retirement age, was in substance an unjust refusal to re‑employ after retirement and thus constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees in similar situations should first confirm whether their company has re‑employment guidelines or established practices regarding re‑employment after mandatory retirement, and whether such guidelines or practices can be applied to them on the same terms.
If you wish to be re‑employed, you should clearly communicate your intention to be re‑employed not only verbally but also in a manner that leaves evidence, such as by email, text message, or official letter. Doing so will make it easier before the Labor Relations Commission to prove both the existence of an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement and the employer’s procedural violations.
Furthermore, if the company does not inquire about your wish to be re‑employed or does not provide the relevant application forms, you should record the circumstances and your responses (for example, by notes or recordings). These records can later serve as important evidence to point out the employer’s procedural violations and legal misunderstandings in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
Employers should clearly establish and refine the content of their rules of employment and re‑employment guidelines relating to mandatory retirement, re‑employment after retirement, and redundancy dismissals, and should document that they are actually implementing the relevant procedures (ascertaining the employee’s wish for re‑employment, accepting application forms, and reviewing grounds for restriction on re‑employment) so that this can be objectively demonstrated.
In particular, note that the obligation to ascertain whether the employee wishes to be re‑employed and the subsequent review of grounds for restricting re‑employment are separate stages. An approach that seeks to avoid responsibility merely by asserting that “the employee did not apply” is unlikely to be accepted by the Labor Relations Commission.
Even if the employment relationship is terminated on the ground that the employee has reached the mandatory retirement age, where internal guidelines or practices have created an expectation of re‑employment after retirement, any refusal to re‑employ will be reviewed, similarly to a refusal to renew a fixed‑term contract, to determine whether there is a “reasonable ground” for such refusal. Accordingly, if there are grounds for refusing re‑employment, those grounds should be specifically organized in advance, and issues such as fairness compared to other employees, the absence of discrimination, and business necessity should be carefully reviewed.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement exists: In light of the fact that the re‑employment guidelines contain provisions on re‑employment after mandatory retirement, and that the employer has re‑employed employees whose mandatory retirement age has arrived in accordance with those guidelines, the employee is recognized as having an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement.
B. Whether there is a reasonable ground for refusing re‑employment: As a rule, under the re‑employment guidelines, procedures for re‑employment after mandatory retirement are to be carried out when the employee submits an application. However, the obligation under Article 8 of the re‑employment guidelines to ascertain whether the employee wishes to be re‑employed, and the review under Article 9 of whether any grounds exist for restricting re‑employment after receipt of the re‑employment application form, must be regarded as separate stages. In particular, there was a defect in that the employer did not more actively fulfill the procedural obligation to ascertain the employee’s wish for re‑employment, and, despite the employee having expressed an intention to be re‑employed in September and November 2025, the employer proceeded to dismiss the employee upon reaching the mandatory retirement age without carrying out the subsequent procedures. This cannot be viewed as a failure to submit a re‑employment application form attributable to the employee, but rather as resulting from the employer’s misunderstanding of the legal framework. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that there was a reasonable ground for refusing re‑employment.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement exists: In light of the fact that the re‑employment guidelines contain provisions on re‑employment after mandatory retirement, and that the employer has re‑employed employees whose mandatory retirement age has arrived in accordance with those guidelines, the employee is recognized as having an expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement.
B. Whether there is a reasonable ground for refusing re‑employment: As a rule, under the re‑employment guidelines, procedures for re‑employment after mandatory retirement are to be carried out when the employee submits an application. However, the obligation under Article 8 of the re‑employment guidelines to ascertain whether the employee wishes to be re‑employed, and the review under Article 9 of whether any grounds exist for restricting re‑employment after receipt of the re‑employment application form, must be regarded as separate stages. In particular, there was a defect in that the employer did not more actively fulfill the procedural obligation to ascertain the employee’s wish for re‑employment, and, despite the employee having expressed an intention to be re‑employed in September and November 2025, the employer proceeded to dismiss the employee upon reaching the mandatory retirement age without carrying out the subsequent procedures. This cannot be viewed as a failure to submit a re‑employment application form attributable to the employee, but rather as resulting from the employer’s misunderstanding of the legal framework. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that there was a reasonable ground for refusing re‑employment. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissal of application
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement (non‑implementation of re‑employment guidelines), dismissal at mandatory retirement, refusal of re‑employment, 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Bicycle Drunk Driving)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of re‑employment after mandatory retirement (non‑implementation of re‑employment guidelines) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Re‑Employment After Mandatory Retirement (Non‑Implementation of Re‑Employment Guidelines).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
