[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (dismissal of the application) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (reinstatement to original position and completion of wage payment).” Adjudicating Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해1788 – ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-08-03 · Result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: During the pendency of the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employer withdrew the dismissal, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position, and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period. As the purpose of the remedy application had already been achieved, there was no remaining relief interest for a monetary compensation order. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, after the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, the employer withdrew the dismissal and ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position. The employer also paid the full amount equivalent to the wages the employee would have received had he or she worked normally during the dismissal period. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission then examined whether there remained any relief interest warranting a separate monetary compensation order. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is pending, and the employer withdraws the dismissal and completes both the reinstatement to the original position and the payment of wages equivalent to those for the dismissal period, does any relief interest remain for seeking a monetary compensation order from the Labor Relations Commission?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employer had withdrawn the dismissal, that an order for reinstatement to the original position had been issued to the employee so that actual reinstatement became possible, and that the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period had been paid, thereby fully achieving the core purposes of the application for remedy for unfair dismissal (restoration of status and compensation for lost wages). Accordingly, regardless of the employee’s contention that the dismissal itself was unfair, the Commission held that there was no independent relief interest remaining for the Labor Relations Commission to issue a further monetary compensation order, and dismissed the application for remedy. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if an application for remedy for unfair dismissal has been filed with the Labor Relations Commission, if the employer explicitly withdraws the dismissal, reinstates the employee to the original position, and fully pays the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, the relief interest in the Labor Relations Commission proceedings may be extinguished. However, if the employee does not wish to be reinstated and seeks only monetary compensation, it is necessary at an early stage to strategically consider whether to apply for a monetary compensation order, whether to refuse reinstatement, etc. If there is any disagreement over the calculation of the wage amount paid, the possibility of additional relief through a civil lawsuit should also be reviewed. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when a dispute over unfair dismissal arises, even before a “unfair dismissal” determination is made by the Labor Relations Commission, the employer may significantly reduce the risk of additional remedial orders or enforcement fines at the Commission stage by withdrawing the dismissal, reinstating the employee to the original position, and faithfully paying the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period. However, a merely formal notice of reinstatement may not be recognized as “genuine reinstatement to the original position.” It is therefore important to: - assign duties that allow the employee to actually perform work, - clearly establish the basis for accurately calculating wages, and - thoroughly prepare written notices and maintain related records. In this type of case, both employees and employers must accurately understand the legal principle that the purposes of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal are “restoration of status” and “compensation for lost wages,” and that if those purposes have already been achieved, the relief interest at the Labor Relations Commission stage may be extinguished. With the assistance of a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, it is advisable to design in advance the choice of remedial measures and procedural strategies in various dismissal and disciplinary disputes, including collective redundancies. 2. Matters Adjudicated a. Case Overview and Procedural History During the pendency of the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employer withdrew the dismissal, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position, and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, thereby already achieving the purpose of the remedy application. Accordingly, there was no relief interest for a monetary compensation order. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision During the pendency of the application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the employer withdrew the dismissal, ordered the employee’s reinstatement to the original position, and paid the amount equivalent to wages for the dismissal period, thereby already achieving the purpose of the remedy application. Accordingly, there was no relief interest for a monetary compensation order. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Comparison of Discipline with Workplace Bullying Victim)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Hiring Commitment (City Gas Safety Manager)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (reinstatement to original position · completion of wage payment), 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Comparison of Discipline with Workplace Bullying Victim)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (reinstatement to original position · completion of wage payment) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Extinction of Relief Interest (Reinstatement to Original Position · Completion of Wage Payment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article