Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Mandatory Retirement (Early Resignation Notice by Secretary-General) (Unfair Dismissal 596)
- Date2026/08/05 04:05
- Read 13
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “mandatory retirement (early resignation notice by secretary-general).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해327 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed in a situation where an employee serving as the secretary-general of an association continued working for a certain period after already passing the mandatory retirement age, and was then processed as retired as of 31 December 2025 on the ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age.” The Labor Relations Commission examined, in a comprehensive manner, the timing of the end of the employee’s working period, the process of appointing a successor secretary-general, and whether there had been an early resignation notice as asserted by the employer, in order to determine whether the case constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the employer’s processing of the retirement of a secretary-general who had already passed the mandatory retirement age, on the ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age” as of 31 December 2025, in fact reflected termination of the employment relationship pursuant to an agreement on early resignation, or whether it constituted unilateral unfair dismissal by the employer.
The decision panel in this case considered the following: the circumstances that the employer, in line with the end of the employee’s working period at the end of December 2025, obtained approval for the appointment of a successor secretary-general at an extraordinary general meeting of delegates on 30 December 2025; that, at a time when important general meetings were imminent, the employer appeared to have no reason to go so far as to dismiss the secretary-general, who had only two months remaining until retirement, on the false ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age”; and that the association’s mandatory retirement age was 60 and the employee had already been working beyond that age.
In light of these factors, the panel found the employer’s assertion that the employee had given early notice of resignation to be quite reasonable.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The Labor Relations Commission, first, took into account that the employee’s working period had been set to end at the end of December 2025 and, in line with this, approval for the appointment of a successor secretary-general was granted at an extraordinary general meeting of delegates on 30 December 2025; second, that although the association’s mandatory retirement age was 60, the employer processed the retirement of an employee who had already been working beyond that age under the formal ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age”; and third, that from the employer’s perspective, at a time when important general meetings were approaching, there did not appear to be a strong motive to dismiss the secretary-general, who had only two months left until retirement, by advancing a false reason.
Taking these circumstances together, the Commission determined that the employee had, at a certain point, communicated to the employer an intention to resign early, and that the retirement processing was closer to termination of the employment relationship based on such agreement. Accordingly, it found the allegation of unfair dismissal difficult to accept.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee continues to work after already passing the mandatory retirement age, it should be borne in mind that “extension of the retirement age” or “re-employment” in principle falls within the employer’s discretion, and that automatic retirement grounds such as reaching the mandatory retirement age or expiration of a fixed-term employment contract, unlike ordinary dismissal, may result in termination of the employment relationship without separate disciplinary or dismissal procedures.
In addition, where the employee and employer agree only verbally on an early resignation, or on the timing and reason for retirement, it becomes difficult for the employee to prove his or her intention in any subsequent dispute. It is therefore necessary to leave a clear record by email, text message, or similar means.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly document the rules on mandatory retirement, the practices regarding re-employment or extension after reaching the mandatory retirement age, and the procedures for appointing successors to key positions such as executives and secretary-general. In particular, where there is continued employment, renewal of contract, or an agreement on early resignation for an employee who has passed the mandatory retirement age, the timing, reasons, and mutually agreed contents should be recorded in writing or electronic documents so that the employer can persuasively explain its position before the Labor Relations Commission in any unfair dismissal dispute.
This decision of the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission is a case in which, even though the formal ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age” was used in the process of an employee retiring after working for a certain period beyond the mandatory retirement age, the Commission determined the existence of unfair dismissal by focusing on specific circumstances such as an agreement on early resignation and the procedure for appointing a successor. In similar cases, both employees and employers should carefully prepare evidence regarding the mandatory retirement rules and actual practices, as well as the process of agreeing on resignation or retirement.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
... Considering the circumstances that, together with the end of the employee’s working period at the end of December 2025, approval for the appointment of a successor secretary-general was obtained at an extraordinary general meeting of delegates on 30 December 2025, and that, from the employer’s perspective, at a time when important general meetings were imminent, there appeared to be no reason to dismiss the employee, who was serving as secretary-general and had only two months remaining until retirement, on the false ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age,” the employer’s assertion that the employee had given early notice of resignation appears to have merit; and that the association’s mandatory retirement age is 60, and for the employer to process the retirement of an employee who had already been working beyond the mandatory retirement age as of 31 December 2025 on the ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age” is ...
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
... Considering the circumstances that, together with the end of the employee’s working period at the end of December 2025, approval for the appointment of a successor secretary-general was obtained at an extraordinary general meeting of delegates on 30 December 2025, and that, from the employer’s perspective, at a time when important general meetings were imminent, there appeared to be no reason to dismiss the employee, who was serving as secretary-general and had only two months remaining until retirement, on the false ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age,” the employer’s assertion that the employee had given early notice of resignation appears to have merit; and that the association’s mandatory retirement age is 60, and for the employer to process the retirement of an employee who had already been working beyond the mandatory retirement age as of 31 December 2025 on the ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age” is ... /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, mandatory retirement (early resignation notice by secretary-general), 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 Concerning Whether a Measure Is Disciplinary (Warning Measure),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to mandatory retirement (early resignation notice by secretary-general) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Mandatory Retirement (Early Resignation Notice by Secretary-General).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “mandatory retirement (early resignation notice by secretary-general).”
Decision Committee: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해327 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed in a situation where an employee serving as the secretary-general of an association continued working for a certain period after already passing the mandatory retirement age, and was then processed as retired as of 31 December 2025 on the ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age.” The Labor Relations Commission examined, in a comprehensive manner, the timing of the end of the employee’s working period, the process of appointing a successor secretary-general, and whether there had been an early resignation notice as asserted by the employer, in order to determine whether the case constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the employer’s processing of the retirement of a secretary-general who had already passed the mandatory retirement age, on the ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age” as of 31 December 2025, in fact reflected termination of the employment relationship pursuant to an agreement on early resignation, or whether it constituted unilateral unfair dismissal by the employer.
The decision panel in this case considered the following: the circumstances that the employer, in line with the end of the employee’s working period at the end of December 2025, obtained approval for the appointment of a successor secretary-general at an extraordinary general meeting of delegates on 30 December 2025; that, at a time when important general meetings were imminent, the employer appeared to have no reason to go so far as to dismiss the secretary-general, who had only two months remaining until retirement, on the false ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age”; and that the association’s mandatory retirement age was 60 and the employee had already been working beyond that age.
In light of these factors, the panel found the employer’s assertion that the employee had given early notice of resignation to be quite reasonable.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The Labor Relations Commission, first, took into account that the employee’s working period had been set to end at the end of December 2025 and, in line with this, approval for the appointment of a successor secretary-general was granted at an extraordinary general meeting of delegates on 30 December 2025; second, that although the association’s mandatory retirement age was 60, the employer processed the retirement of an employee who had already been working beyond that age under the formal ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age”; and third, that from the employer’s perspective, at a time when important general meetings were approaching, there did not appear to be a strong motive to dismiss the secretary-general, who had only two months left until retirement, by advancing a false reason.
Taking these circumstances together, the Commission determined that the employee had, at a certain point, communicated to the employer an intention to resign early, and that the retirement processing was closer to termination of the employment relationship based on such agreement. Accordingly, it found the allegation of unfair dismissal difficult to accept.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee continues to work after already passing the mandatory retirement age, it should be borne in mind that “extension of the retirement age” or “re-employment” in principle falls within the employer’s discretion, and that automatic retirement grounds such as reaching the mandatory retirement age or expiration of a fixed-term employment contract, unlike ordinary dismissal, may result in termination of the employment relationship without separate disciplinary or dismissal procedures.
In addition, where the employee and employer agree only verbally on an early resignation, or on the timing and reason for retirement, it becomes difficult for the employee to prove his or her intention in any subsequent dispute. It is therefore necessary to leave a clear record by email, text message, or similar means.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly document the rules on mandatory retirement, the practices regarding re-employment or extension after reaching the mandatory retirement age, and the procedures for appointing successors to key positions such as executives and secretary-general. In particular, where there is continued employment, renewal of contract, or an agreement on early resignation for an employee who has passed the mandatory retirement age, the timing, reasons, and mutually agreed contents should be recorded in writing or electronic documents so that the employer can persuasively explain its position before the Labor Relations Commission in any unfair dismissal dispute.
This decision of the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission is a case in which, even though the formal ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age” was used in the process of an employee retiring after working for a certain period beyond the mandatory retirement age, the Commission determined the existence of unfair dismissal by focusing on specific circumstances such as an agreement on early resignation and the procedure for appointing a successor. In similar cases, both employees and employers should carefully prepare evidence regarding the mandatory retirement rules and actual practices, as well as the process of agreeing on resignation or retirement.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
... Considering the circumstances that, together with the end of the employee’s working period at the end of December 2025, approval for the appointment of a successor secretary-general was obtained at an extraordinary general meeting of delegates on 30 December 2025, and that, from the employer’s perspective, at a time when important general meetings were imminent, there appeared to be no reason to dismiss the employee, who was serving as secretary-general and had only two months remaining until retirement, on the false ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age,” the employer’s assertion that the employee had given early notice of resignation appears to have merit; and that the association’s mandatory retirement age is 60, and for the employer to process the retirement of an employee who had already been working beyond the mandatory retirement age as of 31 December 2025 on the ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age” is ...
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
... Considering the circumstances that, together with the end of the employee’s working period at the end of December 2025, approval for the appointment of a successor secretary-general was obtained at an extraordinary general meeting of delegates on 30 December 2025, and that, from the employer’s perspective, at a time when important general meetings were imminent, there appeared to be no reason to dismiss the employee, who was serving as secretary-general and had only two months remaining until retirement, on the false ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age,” the employer’s assertion that the employee had given early notice of resignation appears to have merit; and that the association’s mandatory retirement age is 60, and for the employer to process the retirement of an employee who had already been working beyond the mandatory retirement age as of 31 December 2025 on the ground of “reaching the mandatory retirement age” is ... /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First-Instance Decision Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, mandatory retirement (early resignation notice by secretary-general), 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 Concerning Whether a Measure Is Disciplinary (Warning Measure),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to mandatory retirement (early resignation notice by secretary-general) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Mandatory Retirement (Early Resignation Notice by Secretary-General).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
