Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Discretion in Monetary Compensation Orders (Full Receipt of Initial Compensation Amount)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 624)
- Date2026/08/15 04:06
- Read 4
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the issue of “discretion in monetary compensation orders (full receipt of initial compensation amount)” was concluded by upholding the initial decision.
Decision Committee: National Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae137 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-08 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issue: Whether a re‑examination application seeking an increase in the monetary compensation amount is permissible: (i) the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission found that a dismissal existed, rendered a “grant” decision, and issued a monetary compensation order against the employer, and the employer complied with the remedy order by paying the full amount of monetary compensation to the worker; (ii) the legal basis for the monetary compensation order is not Article 28 (Application for Remedy from Unfair Dismissal, etc.) of the Labor Standards Act, but Article 30 (Remedy Orders, etc.); (iii) Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act (Remedy Orders, etc.) provides that “the Labor Relations Commission may order the employer to pay the worker money equivalent to or greater than the amount of wages…”.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose from an application for remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal, in which the Regional Labor Relations Commission found the dismissal to be unfair and, instead of ordering reinstatement to the original position, issued a monetary compensation order. The employer then fully complied with that order by paying the entire monetary compensation amount.
Subsequently, the worker, considering the initial monetary compensation amount to be insufficient, filed an application for re‑examination with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking an increase in the monetary compensation amount. The Labor Relations Commission then examined whether such an application for re‑examination was permissible.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, after the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission has recognized the unfair dismissal and issued a monetary compensation order, and the employer has complied with the remedy order by paying the full amount, the worker may file an application for re‑examination seeking an “increase” in the monetary compensation amount—namely, whether there is a legitimate interest in filing for re‑examination solely for the purpose of increasing the monetary compensation.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held as follows: (i) the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission had already issued a monetary compensation order on the premise of unfair dismissal, and the employer complied with the remedy order by paying the full amount; (ii) the legal basis for the monetary compensation order is not Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act, which provides for the worker’s right to apply for remedy, but Article 30, which prescribes the content and scope of the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy orders; (iii) Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act provides that “the Labor Relations Commission may order the employer to pay the worker money equivalent to or greater than the amount of wages,” so that the choice of whether to issue a monetary compensation order and the determination of its amount fall within the Commission’s discretion, and it is difficult to interpret this provision as granting the worker a statutory or doctrinal “right to demand an increase” in the amount.
Accordingly, the Commission found that a worker may not file an application for re‑examination solely to challenge the “amount itself” of a monetary compensation order that has already been complied with, for the mere purpose of seeking an increase.
In this case, although the dismissal had already been found to be unfair at the Labor Relations Commission stage and a monetary compensation order had been issued, the Commission held that an application for re‑examination filed thereafter solely for the purpose of increasing the monetary compensation amount was not permissible.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that a monetary compensation order can function as a “final remedy in lieu of reinstatement to the original position.” At the stage of requesting a monetary compensation order, it is important to fully organize and present all relevant factors—such as the period of dismissal, the amount equivalent to wages, and any consolation or emotional distress damages—so that the Labor Relations Commission can refer to concrete calculation bases and supporting materials when exercising its discretion.
In addition, once the monetary compensation order has become final and the employer has paid the full amount, it is difficult to expect that the Labor Relations Commission will entertain re‑examination proceedings merely on the ground that “the amount is too low.” Any claim for additional damages may need to be pursued in separate civil litigation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the best way to reduce the likelihood of a finding of unfair dismissal is to sufficiently secure the legitimacy of both the grounds and procedures for dismissal—whether for redundancy or disciplinary reasons—beforehand. Nevertheless, if a dismissal is found to be unfair and a monetary compensation order is issued, full payment within the compliance period will be regarded as fulfillment of the obligation to comply with the remedy order. In that situation, even if the worker files for re‑examination solely on the ground of seeking an increase in the monetary compensation amount, it is unlikely to be accepted. Thus, prompt and full compliance can work favorably toward an early resolution of the dispute.
Furthermore, because a monetary compensation order is issued, at the discretion of the Labor Relations Commission, in lieu of an order for reinstatement, it is advisable, during the course of the proceedings, to comprehensively review the company’s ability to reinstate, organizational needs, and the potential for future disputes, and to formulate a strategy together with a professional representative such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Whether a re‑examination application seeking an increase in the monetary compensation amount is permissible: (i) the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission found that a dismissal existed, rendered a “grant” decision, and issued a monetary compensation order against the employer, and the employer complied with the remedy order by paying the full amount of monetary compensation to the worker; (ii) the legal basis for the monetary compensation order is not Article 28 (Application for Remedy from Unfair Dismissal, etc.) of the Labor Standards Act, but Article 30 (Remedy Orders, etc.); (iii) Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act (Remedy Orders, etc.) provides that “the Labor Relations Commission may order the employer to pay the worker money equivalent to or greater than the amount of wages.” In light of this, the right to request a monetary compensation order is not a right recognized by statute or legal principle, but a matter within the discretion of the Labor Relations Commission …
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Whether a re‑examination application seeking an increase in the monetary compensation amount is permissible: (i) the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission found that a dismissal existed, rendered a “grant” decision, and issued a monetary compensation order against the employer, and the employer complied with the remedy order by paying the full amount of monetary compensation to the worker; (ii) the legal basis for the monetary compensation order is not Article 28 (Application for Remedy from Unfair Dismissal, etc.) of the Labor Standards Act, but Article 30 (Remedy Orders, etc.); (iii) Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act (Remedy Orders, etc.) provides that “the Labor Relations Commission may order the employer to pay the worker money equivalent to or greater than the amount of wages.” In light of this, the right to request a monetary compensation order is not a right recognized by statute or legal principle, but a matter within the discretion of the Labor Relations Commission … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, discretion in monetary compensation orders (full receipt of initial compensation amount), 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, “‘Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence (Violation of Orders of Command)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to discretion in monetary compensation orders (full receipt of initial compensation amount) can be viewed together in the “Discretion in Monetary Compensation Orders (Full Receipt of Initial Compensation Amount) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the issue of “discretion in monetary compensation orders (full receipt of initial compensation amount)” was concluded by upholding the initial decision.
Decision Committee: National Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae137 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-08 · Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issue: Whether a re‑examination application seeking an increase in the monetary compensation amount is permissible: (i) the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission found that a dismissal existed, rendered a “grant” decision, and issued a monetary compensation order against the employer, and the employer complied with the remedy order by paying the full amount of monetary compensation to the worker; (ii) the legal basis for the monetary compensation order is not Article 28 (Application for Remedy from Unfair Dismissal, etc.) of the Labor Standards Act, but Article 30 (Remedy Orders, etc.); (iii) Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act (Remedy Orders, etc.) provides that “the Labor Relations Commission may order the employer to pay the worker money equivalent to or greater than the amount of wages…”.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose from an application for remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal, in which the Regional Labor Relations Commission found the dismissal to be unfair and, instead of ordering reinstatement to the original position, issued a monetary compensation order. The employer then fully complied with that order by paying the entire monetary compensation amount.
Subsequently, the worker, considering the initial monetary compensation amount to be insufficient, filed an application for re‑examination with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking an increase in the monetary compensation amount. The Labor Relations Commission then examined whether such an application for re‑examination was permissible.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, after the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission has recognized the unfair dismissal and issued a monetary compensation order, and the employer has complied with the remedy order by paying the full amount, the worker may file an application for re‑examination seeking an “increase” in the monetary compensation amount—namely, whether there is a legitimate interest in filing for re‑examination solely for the purpose of increasing the monetary compensation.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held as follows: (i) the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission had already issued a monetary compensation order on the premise of unfair dismissal, and the employer complied with the remedy order by paying the full amount; (ii) the legal basis for the monetary compensation order is not Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act, which provides for the worker’s right to apply for remedy, but Article 30, which prescribes the content and scope of the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy orders; (iii) Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act provides that “the Labor Relations Commission may order the employer to pay the worker money equivalent to or greater than the amount of wages,” so that the choice of whether to issue a monetary compensation order and the determination of its amount fall within the Commission’s discretion, and it is difficult to interpret this provision as granting the worker a statutory or doctrinal “right to demand an increase” in the amount.
Accordingly, the Commission found that a worker may not file an application for re‑examination solely to challenge the “amount itself” of a monetary compensation order that has already been complied with, for the mere purpose of seeking an increase.
In this case, although the dismissal had already been found to be unfair at the Labor Relations Commission stage and a monetary compensation order had been issued, the Commission held that an application for re‑examination filed thereafter solely for the purpose of increasing the monetary compensation amount was not permissible.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that a monetary compensation order can function as a “final remedy in lieu of reinstatement to the original position.” At the stage of requesting a monetary compensation order, it is important to fully organize and present all relevant factors—such as the period of dismissal, the amount equivalent to wages, and any consolation or emotional distress damages—so that the Labor Relations Commission can refer to concrete calculation bases and supporting materials when exercising its discretion.
In addition, once the monetary compensation order has become final and the employer has paid the full amount, it is difficult to expect that the Labor Relations Commission will entertain re‑examination proceedings merely on the ground that “the amount is too low.” Any claim for additional damages may need to be pursued in separate civil litigation.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the best way to reduce the likelihood of a finding of unfair dismissal is to sufficiently secure the legitimacy of both the grounds and procedures for dismissal—whether for redundancy or disciplinary reasons—beforehand. Nevertheless, if a dismissal is found to be unfair and a monetary compensation order is issued, full payment within the compliance period will be regarded as fulfillment of the obligation to comply with the remedy order. In that situation, even if the worker files for re‑examination solely on the ground of seeking an increase in the monetary compensation amount, it is unlikely to be accepted. Thus, prompt and full compliance can work favorably toward an early resolution of the dispute.
Furthermore, because a monetary compensation order is issued, at the discretion of the Labor Relations Commission, in lieu of an order for reinstatement, it is advisable, during the course of the proceedings, to comprehensively review the company’s ability to reinstate, organizational needs, and the potential for future disputes, and to formulate a strategy together with a professional representative such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Whether a re‑examination application seeking an increase in the monetary compensation amount is permissible: (i) the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission found that a dismissal existed, rendered a “grant” decision, and issued a monetary compensation order against the employer, and the employer complied with the remedy order by paying the full amount of monetary compensation to the worker; (ii) the legal basis for the monetary compensation order is not Article 28 (Application for Remedy from Unfair Dismissal, etc.) of the Labor Standards Act, but Article 30 (Remedy Orders, etc.); (iii) Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act (Remedy Orders, etc.) provides that “the Labor Relations Commission may order the employer to pay the worker money equivalent to or greater than the amount of wages.” In light of this, the right to request a monetary compensation order is not a right recognized by statute or legal principle, but a matter within the discretion of the Labor Relations Commission …
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Whether a re‑examination application seeking an increase in the monetary compensation amount is permissible: (i) the initial Regional Labor Relations Commission found that a dismissal existed, rendered a “grant” decision, and issued a monetary compensation order against the employer, and the employer complied with the remedy order by paying the full amount of monetary compensation to the worker; (ii) the legal basis for the monetary compensation order is not Article 28 (Application for Remedy from Unfair Dismissal, etc.) of the Labor Standards Act, but Article 30 (Remedy Orders, etc.); (iii) Article 30(3) of the Labor Standards Act (Remedy Orders, etc.) provides that “the Labor Relations Commission may order the employer to pay the worker money equivalent to or greater than the amount of wages.” In light of this, the right to request a monetary compensation order is not a right recognized by statute or legal principle, but a matter within the discretion of the Labor Relations Commission … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, discretion in monetary compensation orders (full receipt of initial compensation amount), 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, “‘Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence (Violation of Orders of Command)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to discretion in monetary compensation orders (full receipt of initial compensation amount) can be viewed together in the “Discretion in Monetary Compensation Orders (Full Receipt of Initial Compensation Amount) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
