Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Extinction of Relief Interest (Refusal to Return to Original Position After Reinstatement Notice)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 549)
- Date2026/07/17 04:08
- Read 17
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (refusal to return to original position after reinstatement notice).”
Decision Committee: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae453 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
① The employer recognized that the dismissal was unfair and notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and paid an amount exceeding the wages the employee would have received had he/she worked during the dismissal period;
② The employee claimed that he/she had refused the employer’s proposal to settle through the Labor Relations Commission procedure because he/she wanted reinstatement to the original position, but thereafter did not comply with the employer’s notice directing a return to work and failed to present any reasonable grounds for being unable to return;
③ The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order was not genuine and…
1. Legal Implications
This unfair dismissal case was handled before the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The employer acknowledged on its own that the dismissal was unfair, notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and paid an amount exceeding the wages corresponding to the dismissal period. Nevertheless, the employee, in the Labor Relations Commission proceedings, applied for a monetary compensation order, disputing the sincerity of the employer’s reinstatement order. In this case, handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Labor Relations Commission appears to have dismissed the application for remedy.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
After dismissing the employee, the employer recognized that the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and had already paid an amount exceeding the wages the employee would have received had he/she provided labor during the dismissal period. The employee initially stated that he/she wanted reinstatement to the original position and therefore refused the employer’s proposal to proceed with a conciliation procedure before the Labor Relations Commission. However, the employee ultimately did not comply with the employer’s direction to return to work and failed to present any specific and reasonable grounds that would make reinstatement impossible.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employer voluntarily acknowledges the unfair dismissal, notifies the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and pays an amount exceeding the wages corresponding to the dismissal period, the employee still retains an interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal and in applying for a monetary compensation order when the employee refuses reinstatement on the ground that the reinstatement order is not genuine.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that the employer voluntarily recognized that the dismissal was unfair and notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position; that the employer had already paid an amount exceeding the wages the employee would have received had he/she provided labor during the dismissal period; and that, although the employee claimed to want reinstatement to the original position, he/she did not in fact comply with the direction to return to work and failed to present any objective grounds for being unable to return.
With respect to the employee’s argument that “the reinstatement order is not genuine” and his/her application for a monetary compensation order, the panel held that the employee had failed to prove the alleged lack of sincerity in the reinstatement order; that, where a reinstatement order by the employer exists and the employee refuses to comply with it, a monetary compensation order cannot be granted; and that, by virtue of the cancellation of the dismissal and the reinstatement order, the legal status the employee originally sought to restore through the remedy procedure had already been reinstated. On these grounds, the panel concluded that there no longer existed any interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, once the employer cancels the dismissal and orders reinstatement to the original position after an application for remedy for unfair dismissal has been filed, the purpose sought to be achieved through the unfair dismissal remedy procedure is, in principle, realized at that point, and the interest in obtaining a remedy may be extinguished. In addition, the monetary compensation order system is an exceptional system designed for employees who do not wish to be reinstated to their original position. Therefore, where reinstatement is objectively possible but the employee refuses to return to work without just cause and merely seeks additional monetary compensation, it will be difficult for such a claim to be accepted by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where there is a risk that a dismissal may be found to be unfair, it is important to promptly withdraw the dismissal, clearly notify the employee in writing of reinstatement to the original position, and calculate and pay the wages corresponding to the dismissal period based on objective criteria as far as possible, thereby creating a structure in which the interest in obtaining a remedy is extinguished. Furthermore, in order to reduce disputes over the sincerity of the reinstatement order, the employer should specify the concrete return-to-work date, place of work, duties, wage conditions, etc., so that the employee can actually return, and keep records of the implementation process.
In this type of case, it is practically very important for both employees and employers to accurately understand the relationship between reinstatement to the original position and monetary compensation orders, the legal doctrine on extinction of relief interest after a reinstatement order, and the allocation of the burden of proof regarding the sincerity of the reinstatement order, and to establish their response strategies accordingly.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The employer recognized that the dismissal was unfair and notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and paid an amount exceeding the wages the employee would have received had he/she provided labor during the dismissal period; ② The employee claimed that he/she had refused the employer’s proposal to settle through the Labor Relations Commission procedure because he/she wanted reinstatement to the original position, but thereafter did not comply with the employer’s notice directing a return to work and failed to present any reasonable grounds for being unable to return; ③ The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order was not genuine and applied for a monetary compensation order, but failed to prove the allegation that the reinstatement order was not genuine, and since the employee refused reinstatement, it was lawful that …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The employer recognized that the dismissal was unfair and notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and paid an amount exceeding the wages the employee would have received had he/she provided labor during the dismissal period; ② The employee claimed that he/she had refused the employer’s proposal to settle through the Labor Relations Commission procedure because he/she wanted reinstatement to the original position, but thereafter did not comply with the employer’s notice directing a return to work and failed to present any reasonable grounds for being unable to return; ③ The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order was not genuine and applied for a monetary compensation order, but failed to prove the allegation that the reinstatement order was not genuine, and since the employee refused reinstatement, it was lawful that … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (refusal to return to original position after reinstatement notice), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Entry into Women’s Restroom)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (refusal to return to original position after reinstatement notice) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Relief Interest (Refusal to Return to Original Position After Reinstatement Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (refusal to return to original position after reinstatement notice).”
Decision Committee: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae453 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-28 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
① The employer recognized that the dismissal was unfair and notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and paid an amount exceeding the wages the employee would have received had he/she worked during the dismissal period;
② The employee claimed that he/she had refused the employer’s proposal to settle through the Labor Relations Commission procedure because he/she wanted reinstatement to the original position, but thereafter did not comply with the employer’s notice directing a return to work and failed to present any reasonable grounds for being unable to return;
③ The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order was not genuine and…
1. Legal Implications
This unfair dismissal case was handled before the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The employer acknowledged on its own that the dismissal was unfair, notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and paid an amount exceeding the wages corresponding to the dismissal period. Nevertheless, the employee, in the Labor Relations Commission proceedings, applied for a monetary compensation order, disputing the sincerity of the employer’s reinstatement order. In this case, handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Labor Relations Commission appears to have dismissed the application for remedy.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
After dismissing the employee, the employer recognized that the dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and had already paid an amount exceeding the wages the employee would have received had he/she provided labor during the dismissal period. The employee initially stated that he/she wanted reinstatement to the original position and therefore refused the employer’s proposal to proceed with a conciliation procedure before the Labor Relations Commission. However, the employee ultimately did not comply with the employer’s direction to return to work and failed to present any specific and reasonable grounds that would make reinstatement impossible.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the employer voluntarily acknowledges the unfair dismissal, notifies the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and pays an amount exceeding the wages corresponding to the dismissal period, the employee still retains an interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal and in applying for a monetary compensation order when the employee refuses reinstatement on the ground that the reinstatement order is not genuine.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that the employer voluntarily recognized that the dismissal was unfair and notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position; that the employer had already paid an amount exceeding the wages the employee would have received had he/she provided labor during the dismissal period; and that, although the employee claimed to want reinstatement to the original position, he/she did not in fact comply with the direction to return to work and failed to present any objective grounds for being unable to return.
With respect to the employee’s argument that “the reinstatement order is not genuine” and his/her application for a monetary compensation order, the panel held that the employee had failed to prove the alleged lack of sincerity in the reinstatement order; that, where a reinstatement order by the employer exists and the employee refuses to comply with it, a monetary compensation order cannot be granted; and that, by virtue of the cancellation of the dismissal and the reinstatement order, the legal status the employee originally sought to restore through the remedy procedure had already been reinstated. On these grounds, the panel concluded that there no longer existed any interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should be aware that, once the employer cancels the dismissal and orders reinstatement to the original position after an application for remedy for unfair dismissal has been filed, the purpose sought to be achieved through the unfair dismissal remedy procedure is, in principle, realized at that point, and the interest in obtaining a remedy may be extinguished. In addition, the monetary compensation order system is an exceptional system designed for employees who do not wish to be reinstated to their original position. Therefore, where reinstatement is objectively possible but the employee refuses to return to work without just cause and merely seeks additional monetary compensation, it will be difficult for such a claim to be accepted by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, where there is a risk that a dismissal may be found to be unfair, it is important to promptly withdraw the dismissal, clearly notify the employee in writing of reinstatement to the original position, and calculate and pay the wages corresponding to the dismissal period based on objective criteria as far as possible, thereby creating a structure in which the interest in obtaining a remedy is extinguished. Furthermore, in order to reduce disputes over the sincerity of the reinstatement order, the employer should specify the concrete return-to-work date, place of work, duties, wage conditions, etc., so that the employee can actually return, and keep records of the implementation process.
In this type of case, it is practically very important for both employees and employers to accurately understand the relationship between reinstatement to the original position and monetary compensation orders, the legal doctrine on extinction of relief interest after a reinstatement order, and the allocation of the burden of proof regarding the sincerity of the reinstatement order, and to establish their response strategies accordingly.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The employer recognized that the dismissal was unfair and notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and paid an amount exceeding the wages the employee would have received had he/she provided labor during the dismissal period; ② The employee claimed that he/she had refused the employer’s proposal to settle through the Labor Relations Commission procedure because he/she wanted reinstatement to the original position, but thereafter did not comply with the employer’s notice directing a return to work and failed to present any reasonable grounds for being unable to return; ③ The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order was not genuine and applied for a monetary compensation order, but failed to prove the allegation that the reinstatement order was not genuine, and since the employee refused reinstatement, it was lawful that …
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The employer recognized that the dismissal was unfair and notified the employee of reinstatement to the original position, and paid an amount exceeding the wages the employee would have received had he/she provided labor during the dismissal period; ② The employee claimed that he/she had refused the employer’s proposal to settle through the Labor Relations Commission procedure because he/she wanted reinstatement to the original position, but thereafter did not comply with the employer’s notice directing a return to work and failed to present any reasonable grounds for being unable to return; ③ The employee argued that the employer’s reinstatement order was not genuine and applied for a monetary compensation order, but failed to prove the allegation that the reinstatement order was not genuine, and since the employee refused reinstatement, it was lawful that … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (refusal to return to original position after reinstatement notice), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Entry into Women’s Restroom)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (refusal to return to original position after reinstatement notice) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Relief Interest (Refusal to Return to Original Position After Reinstatement Notice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
