Korean 500 labor precedent cases were uploaded in App contents - it is a great job ever made in App
Section 1: Parties and Remedial Measures
Chapter 1: Workers
1. General
• Criteria for determining worker status under the Labor Standards Act (Supreme Court ruling on December 7, 2006, Case No. 2004Da29736)
• Determination of self-employed status independent of worker status (Supreme Court ruling on November 13, 2014, Case No. 2013Da77805)
• Whether payments made in the determination of worker status are considered remuneration for labor (Daegu District Court ruling on August 21, 2015, Case No. 2015Na301869)
2. Determination of Executive and Sub-Executive Worker Status under the Labor Standards Act
• Registered executives (Supreme Court ruling on September 7, 2017, Case No. 2017Du46899 (acknowledged), Supreme Court ruling on September 26, 2013, Case No. 2012Da28813 (denied))
• Unregistered executives (Supreme Court ruling on June 27, 2013, Case No. 2010Da57459 (acknowledged), Supreme Court ruling on November 9, 2017, Case No. 2012Da10959 (denied))
• Representative Directors (Supreme Court ruling on May 29, 2014, Case No. 2012Da98720 (denied))
• Sub-Executive Directors (Supreme Court ruling on May 26, 2016, Case No. 2014Do12141 (acknowledged))
3. Case Studies on Determination of Worker Status by Occupation under the Labor Standards Act
• University part-time lecturers (Supreme Court ruling on March 29, 2007, Case No. 2005Du13018, 13025 (acknowledged))
• Native English instructors at English academies for elementary and middle school students (Supreme Court ruling on June 11, 2015, Case No. 2014Da88161 (acknowledged))
• Academy bus drivers (Supreme Court ruling on May 28, 2015, Case No. 2014Da62749 (acknowledged), Supreme Court ruling on July 24, 2014, Case No. 2012Du16442 (denied))
• Charter bus operators for cargo transportation (Supreme Court ruling on April 26, 2013, Case No. 2012Do5385 (acknowledged), Supreme Court ruling on July 11, 2013, Case No. 2012Da57040 (denied))
• Department store sales employees (Supreme Court ruling on January 25, 2017, Case No. 2015Da59146 (acknowledged))
• Yakult consignment sales representatives (Supreme Court ruling on August 24, 2016, Case No. 2015Da253986 (denied))
• Debt collectors (Supreme Court ruling on April 15, 2016, Case No. 2015Da252891 (acknowledged), Supreme Court ruling on July 9, 2015, Case No. 2012Da20550 (acknowledged), Supreme Court ruling on May 15, 2008, Case No. 2008Du1566 (acknowledged), Supreme Court ruling on September 10, 2015, Case No. 2013Da40612, 40629 (denied))
• Telemarketers (Supreme Court ruling on October 27, 2016, Case No. 2016Da29890 (acknowledged))
• Video journalism assistants (Supreme Court ruling on March 24, 2011, Case No. 2010Du10754 (acknowledged))
• Broadcasting production PDs (Supreme Court ruling on April 10, 2014, Case No. 2011Du19390 (acknowledged))
• Tailors (Supreme Court ruling on October 29, 2009, Case No. 2009Da51417 (acknowledged))
• Contracted employees (Supreme Court ruling on March 24, 2016, Case No. 2011Da1880 (denied))
• Caregivers (Supreme Court ruling on December 24, 2009, Case No. 2009Du18448 (denied))
4. Determination of Worker Status under the Trade Union Act
• Golf course caddies (Supreme Court ruling on May 25, 1993, Case No. 90Nu1731 (acknowledged)), Supreme Court ruling on February 13, 2014, Case No. 2011Da78804 (acknowledged))
• Study guide instructors (Supreme Court ruling on June 15, 2018, Case No. 2014Du12598, 12604 (acknowledged))
• Broadcasting announcers (Supreme Court ruling on October 12, 2018, Case No. 2015Du38092 (acknowledged))
• Foreign workers without work permits (Supreme Court ruling on June 25, 2015, Case No. 2007Du4995 (acknowledged))
• Individuals in temporary unemployment or job seekers (Supreme Court ruling on February 27, 2004, Case No. 2001Du8568 (acknowledged))
• Scope of membership of dismissed teachers (Supreme Court ruling on January 14, 2016, Case No. 2012Do1006)
Chapter 2: Employers
1. Determination of Employer Status under the Labor Standards Act
• Meaning and criteria for determining the role of business managers (Supreme Court ruling on April 10, 2008, Case No. 2007Do1199)
• Determination of employer status based on the factual employment relationship (Supreme Court ruling on December 7, 2006, Case No. 2006Do300)
• Employer status of certain organizational units, execution agencies, or task managers (Supreme Court ruling on February 24, 2006, Case No. 2005Du5673)
• Employer of corporate employees under the control of sub-executive directors (Supreme Court ruling on November 26, 2002, Case No. 2002Do649)
• Determination of employer status between subcontractors and lessees (Supreme Court ruling on January 23, 1998, Case No. 97Da44676)
• Determination of employer status in cases of de facto management of the company (Supreme Court ruling on November 11, 1997, Case No. 97Do813)
• Employer status of subcontractors towards recipients (Supreme Court ruling on July 10, 2008, Case No. 2005Da75088)
2. Determination of Employer Status under the Trade Union Act
• Meaning of individuals acting on behalf of employers and always representing the interests of employers (Supreme Court ruling on September 8, 2011, Case No. 2008Du13873)
• Meaning of the state as an employer in collective bargaining (Supreme Court ruling on September 11, 2008, Case No. 2006Da40935)
• Meaning of employer organizations as counterparts for labor unions and collective bargaining (Supreme Court ruling on June 22, 1999, Case No. 98Du137)
• Employers in unfair labor practices due to domination and intervention (Supreme Court ruling on March 25, 2010, Case No. 2007Du888)
Chapter 3: Entities Eligible for Redress and Redress Benefits
1. Eligible for Redress
• Exclusion of separate redress benefits for wage equivalent upon expiration of the employment contract period (Supreme Court ruling on June 28, 2012, Case No. 2012Du4036)
• Meaning of other punitive measures as eligible for redress
o Cases not recognized as other punitive measures (Seoul High Court ruling on July 14, 2011, Case No. 2010GuHap32587)
o Cases recognized as other punitive measures (Seoul High Court ruling on July 1, 2009, Case No. 2008GuHap47494)
2. Extinction of Redress Benefits
• Extinction of unfair dismissal redress benefits upon final judgment of employee's defeat in civil litigation (Supreme Court ruling on May 24, 2012, Case No. 2010Du15964)
• Denial of redress benefits if reinstated after dismissal (Supreme Court ruling on February 8, 2002, Case No. 2000Du7186)
• Extinction of redress benefits when employee consents to or approves dismissal (Supreme Court ruling on February 27, 1998, Case No. 97Nu18202)
• Extinction of suspension redress benefits upon disciplinary action following suspension order (Supreme Court ruling on September 26, 1997, Case No. 97Da25590)
3. Exceptional Recognition of Redress Benefits
• Exceptional recognition of redress benefits if there are restrictions such as promotion restrictions due to position removal (Supreme Court ruling on July 29, 2010, Case No. 2007Du18406)
• Recognition of redress benefits for wage equivalents (Seoul High Court ruling on July 19, 2007, Case No. 2006Nu27979)
• Exceptional recognition of transfer order redress benefits after dismissal (Supreme Court ruling on February 17, 1995, Case No. 94Nu7959)
• Recognition of redress benefits to avoid employer's statutory obligations (Supreme Court ruling on April 29, 1994, Case No. 93Nu16680)
4. Contract Expiration and Redress Benefits
• Existence of redress benefits even if employment relationship ends during discrimination correction process (Seoul High Court ruling on June 23, 2015, Case No. 2014GuHap21042)
• Extinguishment of dispute benefits even during redress process upon expiration of employment contract period (Supreme Court ruling on December 10, 2009, Case No. 2008Du22136)
• Recognition of redress benefits upon acknowledgment of renewal expectancy (Supreme Court ruling on July 8, 2005, Case No. 2002Du8640)
5. Business Closure and Redress Benefits
• Recognition of redress benefits in case of disguised business closure (Seoul High Court ruling on November 27, 2007, Case No. 2007Nu6009)
• Recognition of redress benefits in case of partial business closure (Seoul High Court ruling on May 19, 2006, Case No. 2005GuHap30181)
• Extinction of redress benefits upon dissolution of employer's corporate status after substantial closure (Supreme Court ruling on December 24, 1991, Case No. 91Nu2762)
Section 2: Individual Employment elationships
Chapter 1: Basic Principles of Employment Relationships
1. Interrelation of Legal Sources
• Guarantee of Minimum Working Conditions (Supreme Court ruling on June 14, 2002, Case No. 2001Da2112)
• Validity of Working Conditions Below Minimum Standards (Supreme Court ruling on May 27, 1993, Case No. 92Da24509)
• Principle of Equal Determination of Working Conditions in Individual Contracts (Supreme Court ruling on April 11, 2003, Case No. 2002Da71832)
• Validity of Downgrading Working Conditions by Collective Agreement (Supreme Court ruling on December 24, 2014, Case No. 2012Da107334)
• Application of Validity of Collective Agreements and Principle of Good Faith (Supreme Court ruling on February 15, 2017, Case No. 2016Da32193)
• Priority of Regulation of Employment Relationships (Supreme Court ruling on March 9, 2017, Case No. 2016Da249236)
2. Equal Treatment and Prohibition of Discrimination
• Equal Pay for Equal Work of Equal Value (Supreme Court ruling on March 14, 2003, Case No. 2002Do3883)
• Discriminatory Treatment Based on Social Status in Working Conditions (Supreme Court ruling on February 26, 2002, Case No. 2000Da39063)
• Prohibition of Discrimination Reasons Based on Type of Employment and Principle of Equal Treatment (Supreme Court ruling on June 24, 2004, Case No. 2002Du2857)
3 Prohibition of Intermediary Exploitation
• Prohibition of Intermediary Exploitation (Supreme Court ruling on September 25, 2008, Case No. 2006Do7660)
Chapter 2: Employment Offer
1. Legal Nature and Effectiveness of Employment Offers
• Legal Nature of Rescission of Employment Offers (Supreme Court ruling on November 28, 2000, Case No. 2000Da51476)
• Burden of Proof for Establishing Validity of Employment Offers (Daejeon High Court ruling on November 16, 2017, Case No. 2017Nu12443)
2. Legitimacy of Rescission of Employment Offers
• Rescission of Employment Offers for Business Reasons (Supreme Court ruling on November 28, 2000, Case No. 2000Da51476)
• Rescission of Employment Offers and Wage Claim Rights (Supreme Court ruling on December 10, 2002, Case No. 2000Da25910)
3. Rescission of Employment Offers and Liability for Damages
• Rescission of Employment Offers and Liability for Damages (Supreme Court ruling on September 10, 1993, Case No. 92Da42897)
Chapter 3: Trial Employment and Probation
1. Legal Nature and Effects of Trial Employment
• Formation of Trial Employment Contracts (Supreme Court ruling on November 12, 1999, Case No. 99Da30473)
• Duration of Trial Employment (Daejeon District Court ruling on February 5, 2015, Case No. 2014GuHap100626)
• Evaluation of Job Suitability and Exercise of Suspended Termination Rights (Supreme Court Decisions, February 24, 2006, Case No. 2002Da62432; July 22, 2003, Case No. 2003Da5955)
• Additional Reasons for Exercising Suspended Termination Rights After Conclusion of Trial Employment Contracts (Seoul High Court ruling on July 6, 2017, Case No. 2017Nu36894)
2. Legitimacy of Refusing Regular Employment
• Irrational Assessment for the Purpose of Interfering with Union Activities (Supreme Court ruling on December 11, 2008, Case No. 2006Du13220)
• Failure to Submit Driving Experience Certificates Not Specified in Employment Rules (Supreme Court ruling on July 15, 2005, Case No. 2003Da50580)
• Insubordination and Work Accidents During Trial Employment (Supreme Court ruling on February 23, 1999, Case No. 98Du5965)
• Failure to Perform Non-mandatory Holiday Overtime and Approved Early Departure/Leave (Supreme Court ruling on February 23, 2001, Case No. 99Du10889)
3. Refusal of Regular Employment and Obligation of Written Notification under Labor Standards Act
• Refusal of Regular Employment and Obligation of Written Notification under the Labor Standards Act (Supreme Court ruling on November 27, 2015, Case No. 2015Du48136)
4. Trial Employment Period Included in Fixed-Term Labor under Article 4 of the Fixed-Term Employment Act
• Trial Employment Period Included in Fixed-Term Labor under Article 4 of the Fixed-Term Employment Act (Seoul High Court ruling on April 21, 2016, Case No. 2015Nu64079)
Chapter 4: Personnel Appointment
1. Promotion and Transfer
• Meaning of Promotion and Transfer
Basis for the Authority to Issue Promotion Orders (Supreme Court ruling on April 23, 2009, Case No. 2007Du20157)
Criteria for Determining Abuse of Promotion Discretion (Supreme Court ruling on October 29, 2015, Case No. 2014Da46969)
• Assessment of Legitimacy when Specific Work Content and Location are Defined
Cases where Employee Consent is Deemed Necessary (Seoul High Court ruling on July 14, 2011, Case No. 2010Nu30408)
Cases where Comprehensive Prior Consent was Deemed Present (Supreme Court ruling on September 14, 1993, Case No. 92Nu18825)
Cases where Implicit Employee Consent was Deemed Present (Seoul Administrative Court ruling on December 19, 2013, Case No. 2013GuHa17268)
• Assessment of Legitimacy when Specific Work Content and Location are Not Defined
Criteria for Legitimacy Assessment (Supreme Court ruling on April 11, 2000, Case No. 99Du2963)
Meaning of Business Necessity for Legitimacy Assessment (Supreme Court ruling on February 28, 2013, Case No. 2010Da52041)
Cases where it was Deemed Not Suitable as a Means for Business Necessity (Seoul High Court ruling on February 1, 2018, Case No. 2017Nu70153)
Determination of Inconvenience in Daily Life (Scope of Inconvenience Generally Tolerable) (Supreme Court ruling on October 13, 1995, Case No. 94Da52928)
Diligent Consultation Procedure for Promotion Orders (Supreme Court ruling on March 12, 2009, Case No. 2007Du22306)
Relationship between Promotion Orders and Disciplinary Actions (Supreme Court ruling on February 28, 2013, Case No. 2010Du20447)
Transfer Orders Violating Agreement Procedures with Labor Union (Seoul High Court ruling on May 14, 2008, Case No. 2007Nu25710)
2. Personnel Records
• Personnel Records and Employment Relationship
Conditions for Validity of Records Without Consent (Supreme Court ruling on December 23, 1996, Case No. 95Da29970)
Records Based on Company's Unilateral Management Policies (Supreme Court ruling on April 11, 2003, Case No. 2001Da71528)
• Procedure for Obtaining Employee Consent for Personnel Records
Cases where Records Without Employee Consent Were Deemed Invalid (Supreme Court ruling on January 12, 2006, Case No. 2005Du9873)
Requirements for Valid Preemptive Consent for Intercompany Record Orders (Supreme Court ruling on January 26, 1993, Case No. 92Da11695)
Comprehensive Prior Consent for Unilateral Record Orders (Supreme Court ruling on January 26, 1993, Case No. 92Nu8200)
• Succession of Personnel Records and Employment Relationship
Succession of Employment Relationship during Company Split (Seoul Administrative Court ruling on September 11, 2008, Case No. 2007GuHa45583)
Records Resulting from Establishment of Subsidiary Company (Supreme Court ruling on December 26, 1997, Case No. 97Da17575)
3. Placing on Standby
• Concept of Placing on Standby
Meaning of Placing on Standby (Supreme Court ruling on August 25, 2006, Case No. 2006Du5151)
Relationship between Placing on Standby and Disciplinary Measures (Supreme Court ruling on November 25, 2005, Case No. 2003Du8210)
Placing on Standby Based on Employer's Management Necessity and Leave of Absence (Supreme Court ruling on October 11, 2013, Case No. 2012Da12870)
• Assessment of the Legitimacy of Placing on Standby
Principles for Assessing Legitimacy (Supreme Court ruling on December 26, 2002, Case No. 2000Du8011)
Effectiveness of Placing on Standby for an Unreasonably Long Period (Supreme Court ruling on February 23, 2007, Case No. 2005Da3991)
Case where Legitimacy was Judged Solely Based on the Existence of Grounds for Placing on Standby (Supreme Court ruling on July 26, 2002, Case No. 2000Du9113)
Placing on Standby based on Reasons other than those specified in Personnel Regulations (Seoul High Court ruling on July 10, 2015, Case No. 2015Nu38988)
Procedural Legitimacy Assessment of Placing on Standby (Supreme Court ruling on May 9, 2013, Case No. 2012Da64833)
• Placing on Standby and Employment Relationship
Placing on Standby and Duty to Report for Work (Supreme Court ruling on May 16, 2003, Case No. 2002Da8138)
Placing on Standby and Right to Resign as a Matter of Course (Supreme Court ruling on May 31, 2007, Case No. 2007Du1460)
Remedial Benefits of Executed Placing on Standby (Supreme Court ruling on July 29, 2010, Case No. 2007Du18406)
Benefits of Placing on Standby Leading to Resignation as a Matter of Course (Supreme Court ruling on May 30, 2018, Case No. 2014Da963)
4. Other Personnel Orders
• Effect of Personnel Orders Infringing General Freedom of Action under the Constitution (Supreme Court ruling on September 13, 2018, Case No. 2017Du38560)
• Legitimacy of Ordered Leave of Absence Based on Criminal Prosecution (Supreme Court ruling on February 18, 2005, Case No. 2003Da63029)
Chapter 5: Corporate Changes
1. Employment Relationship Due to Business Transfer
• Succession of Employment Relationship Due to Business Transfer (Supreme Court ruling on July 27, 2001, Case No. 99Du2680) (Supreme Court ruling on March 29, 2002, Case No. 2000Du8455)
• Succession of Employment Relationship and Employment Rules (Supreme Court ruling on December 26, 1995, Case No. 95Da41659)
• Succession of Employment Relationship and Collective Agreements (Supreme Court ruling on March 26, 2002, Case No. 2000Da3347)
• Business Transfer and Continuation of Employment Period (Supreme Court ruling on November 13, 2001, Case No. 2000Da18608)
• Partial Transfer of Business and Employees' Right to Refuse Transfer (Supreme Court ruling on May 10, 2012, Case No. 2011Da45217)
2. Employment Relationship Due to Merger and Company Split
• Succession of Employment Relationship Due to Merger (Supreme Court ruling on September 25, 2001, Case No. 2001Da18421)
• Employment Conditions After Succession of Employment Relationship Due to Merger (Supreme Court ruling on April 24, 2001, Case No. 99Da9370)
• Merger and Succession of Collective Agreements (Supreme Court ruling on May 14, 2004, Case No. 2002Da23185, 23192)
• Succession of Employment Rules in Public Enterprise Mergers (Supreme Court ruling on January 28, 2010, Case No. 2009Da32522, 32539)
• Company Split and Succession of Employment Relationship (Supreme Court ruling on December 12, 2013, Case No. 2011Du4282)
3. Employment Relationship Due to Changes in Subcontractors, etc.
• Non-Acknowledgment of Comprehensive Succession with Change of Subcontractor (Supreme Court ruling on December 12, 2013, Case No. 2012Du14323)
• Denial of Employment Succession for Predecessor in Case of Transfer of Contract (Supreme Court ruling on June 14, 2002, Case No. 2002Da14488)
• Employment Succession Practices and Obligation to Rehire (Seoul High Court ruling on June 25, 2014, Case No. 2013Nu27298)
• Change of Service Provider and Implicit Business Transfer Agreement (Seoul High Court ruling on June 14, 2017, Case No. 2016Nu62223)
• Change of Service Provider and Contract for Third Parties (Daejeon District Court ruling on November 21, 2017, Case No. 2015Gadan228451)
4. Establishment of Corporation, etc., According to Legal Regulations and Administrative Measures and Employment Relationship
• Succession of Employment Relationship Due to Establishment of Public Institutions (Supreme Court ruling on May 14, 2002, Case No. 2001Du6579) (Supreme Court ruling on March 25, 2005, Case No. 2003Da39644)
• Establishment of Special Corporation and Succession of Wage Claims (Supreme Court ruling on September 28, 2018, Case No. 2018Da207588)
• Merger of Institutions Based on Administrative Agency Guidelines and Employment Relationship (Supreme Court ruling on December 27, 2007, Case No. 2007Da51017)
• Transfer Decision for Insolvent Financial Institutions and Employment Succession (Supreme Court ruling on May 30, 2003, Case No. 2002Du23826)
Chapter 6: Disciplinary Actions
1. Grounds for Disciplinary Action
• Justifiability of Disciplinary Reasons Based on Employment Rules (Supreme Court ruling on September 29, 2000, Case No. 99Du10902)
• Effectiveness of Disciplinary Measures When Only Some of the Allegations Are Acknowledged (Supreme Court ruling on December 28, 2007, Case No. 2006Da33999)
• Requirements for Justifiability of Dismissal for Falsification of Career History (Supreme Court ruling on July 5, 2012, Case No. 2009Du16763)
• Justifiability of Disciplinary Action for Refusal to Submit Resignation Letter (Supreme Court ruling on January 14, 2010, Case No. 2009Du6605)
• Requirements for Disciplinary Action Regarding Personal Misconduct (Supreme Court ruling on December 14, 2001, Case No. 2000Du3689)
• Justifiability of Disciplinary Action for Violation of Non-competition or Concurrent Employment Restrictions (Supreme Court ruling on September 27, 2012, Case No. 2010Da99279)
• Justifiability of Disciplinary Action for Posting Unauthorized Content (Supreme Court ruling on January 27, 2012, Case No. 2010Da100919)
2. Determination of Disciplinary Measures
• Criteria for Determining Disciplinary Measures (Supreme Court ruling on November 26, 2015, Case No. 2015Du46550) (Supreme Court ruling on January 29, 2015, Case No. 2014Du40616)
• Scope of Consideration Factors for Disciplinary Measures (Supreme Court ruling on March 24, 2011, Case No. 2010Da21962)
3. Disciplinary Procedures
• Violation of Notification Obligation for Disciplinary Committee Meeting Date and Place (Supreme Court ruling on July 9, 1991, Case No. 90Da8077) (Supreme Court ruling on January 27, 2012, Case No. 2010Da100919)
• Normative Effectiveness of Collective Agreement Provisions on Dismissal Reasons and Procedures (Supreme Court ruling on February 12, 2009, Case No. 2008Da70336)
• Application of Disciplinary Procedures for Usual Dismissal and Automatic Retirement Orders (Supreme Court ruling on September 25, 2008, Case No. 2006Du18423) (Supreme Court ruling on October 25, 1994, Case No. 94Da25889) (Supreme Court ruling on March 24, 1995, Case No. 94Da42082)
• Qualifications and Appointment of Employee Representatives on Disciplinary Committees (Supreme Court ruling on May 28, 2015, Case No. 2013Du3351) (Supreme Court ruling on November 23, 2006, Case No. 2006Da48069)
• Request for Recusal of Disciplinary Committee Members (Supreme Court ruling on November 26, 2015, Case No. 2015Du36126)
• Attendance of Interested Parties Violating Exclusion Rules at Disciplinary Committee Meetings (Supreme Court ruling on April 28, 1995, Case No. 94Da59882) (Supreme Court ruling on July 28, 2011, Case No. 2008Du11693)
• Abuse and Waiver of Prior Consultation Rights by Labor Unions (Supreme Court ruling on July 13, 1993, Case No. 92Da50263) (Supreme Court ruling on June 28, 2012, Case No. 2010Da38007)
• Effectiveness of Disciplinary Action Violating Reconsideration Procedures (Supreme Court ruling on May 27, 2010, Case No. 2010Du1743)
• Remediation of Procedural Defects (Supreme Court ruling on November 25, 2005, Case No. 2003Du8210)
4. Criteria for Harassment-Related Judgments
• Requirements, Burden of Proof, and Degree of Proof for Harassment as a Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Supreme Court ruling on April 12, 2018, Case No. 2017Du74702)
• Determination of Disciplinary Measures for Termination Due to Workplace Harassment (Supreme Court ruling on July 10, 2008, Case No. 2007Du22498)
5. Statute of Limitations for Disciplinary Actions
• Statute of Limitations for Disciplinary Actions (Supreme Court ruling on June 12, 1998, Case No. 97Nu16084) (Supreme Court ruling on June 12, 2014, Case No. 2014Du4931)
• Reduction of Retirement Benefits (Supreme Court ruling on September 6, 2002, Case No. 2002Da29442)
Chapter 7: Termination of Employment
1. Meaning of Termination
• Definition of Termination (Supreme Court ruling on March 26, 2009, Case No. 2008Da62724) (Supreme Court ruling on October 26, 1993, Case No. 92Da54210)
• Effectiveness of Involuntary Termination (Supreme Court ruling on June 10, 2005, Case No. 2004Du10548)
• Justifiability of Termination for Low Performance (Seoul High Court ruling on June 24, 2011, Case No. 2010GuHap47404)
• Business Closure and Regular Termination (Supreme Court ruling on April 25, 2003, Case No. 2003Da7005)
2. Termination for Management Reasons
• Requirements for Valid Termination for Management Reasons (Supreme Court ruling on July 9, 2002, Case No. 2001Da29452)
• Effects of Termination for Management Reasons Contrary to Employment Stability Agreements (Supreme Court ruling on March 27, 2014, Case No. 2011Du20406)
3. Determination of Urgent Management Necessity
• Urgent Management Necessity in Cases Where Separate Corporations Are Operated as a Single Unit (Supreme Court ruling on September 22, 2006, Case No. 2005Da30580)
• Urgent Management Necessity in Cases of Accumulated Losses Over Several Years (Supreme Court ruling on January 27, 2011, Case No. 2008Du13972)
• Deterioration of Business Division Performance in Profitable Companies (Supreme Court ruling on February 23, 2012, Case No. 2010Da3629)
• Timing of Determining Urgent Management Necessity (Supreme Court ruling on June 13, 2013, Case No. 2011Da60193)
• Urgent Management Necessity in Multiple Business Divisions (Supreme Court ruling on May 28, 2015, Case No. 2012Du25873)
4. Efforts to Avoid Termination and Criteria for Selecting Employees for Termination
• Fulfillment of Efforts to Avoid Termination (Supreme Court ruling on November 13, 2014, Case No. 2014Da20875, 20882)
• Criteria for Selecting Employees for Termination for Management Reasons (Supreme Court ruling on May 24, 2012, Case No. 2011Du11310)
5. Consultation with Employee Representatives
• Role of Employee Representatives as Consultation Partners in Termination for Management Reasons (Supreme Court ruling on January 26, 2006, Case No. 2003Du69393)
• Counterpart to Pre-termination Consultation in Cases of Termination for Management Reasons (Supreme Court ruling on May 24, 2012, Case No. 2010Du15964)
• Effectiveness of Termination Agreement Clauses in Collective Agreements (Supreme Court ruling on September 6, 2007, Case No. 2005Du8788)
6. Validity of Termination Procedures
• Written Notice of Termination (Supreme Court ruling on October 27, 2011, Case No. 2011Da42324)
• Termination Notice via Email (Supreme Court ruling on September 10, 2015, Case No. 2015Du41401)
7. Relationship between Unfair Dismissal and Illegal Acts/Breach of Obligations
• Liability for Unfair Dismissal and Illegal Acts (Supreme Court ruling on October 12, 1993, Case No. 92Da43586)
• Liability for Illegal Acts in Cases of Sham Closure (Supreme Court ruling on March 10, 2011, Case No. 2010Da13282)
• Liability for Damages in Cases of Unfair Dismissal (Supreme Court ruling on February 23, 1999, Case No. 98Da12157)
• Compensation Liability for Failure to Re-employ by the Employer (Supreme Court ruling on January 16, 2014, Case No. 2013Da69385)
• Unfair Dismissal and Deduction of Intermediate Income (Supreme Court ruling on June 28, 1991, Case No. 90DaKa25277)
Chapter 8: Expiration of Fixed-Term Employment Contracts
1. Limitation on the Use Period of Fixed-Term Employment Contracts
• Conversion of Fixed-Term Employees to Permanent Status Due to Exceeding 2 Years (Supreme Court ruling on January 25, 2018, Case No. 2017Du59987)
• Recognition of Continuity in Repeatedly Renewed Fixed-Term Employment Contracts (Supreme Court ruling on February 3, 2017, Case No. 2016Da255910)
2. Recognition and Denial of De Facto Permanent Employment
• Recognition of De Facto Permanent Employment (Supreme Court ruling on September 7, 2007, Case No. 2005Du16901)
• Denial of De Facto Permanent Employment (Supreme Court ruling on July 12, 2007, Case No. 2005Du2247)
3. Expectation Rights of Fixed-Term Employees and Expectation Rights for Conversion to Permanent Employment
• Criteria for Recognizing Expectation Rights for Renewal (Supreme Court ruling on April 14, 2011, Case No. 2007Du1729)
• Recognition of Expectation Rights for Renewal Based on Renewal Provisions (Supreme Court ruling on July 8, 2005, Case No. 2002Du8640)
• Recognition of Expectation Rights for Renewal Based on Trust in Establishing a Renewal Relationship (Supreme Court ruling on June 14, 2012, Case No. 2010Du8225)
• Expectation Rights for Renewal in Exceptional Circumstances of Time-Limited Employment (Supreme Court ruling on February 3, 2017, Case No. 2016Du50563)
• Criteria for Recognizing Expectation Rights for Renewal After Passing the Retirement Age (Supreme Court ruling on February 3, 2017, Case No. 2016Du50563)
• Criteria for Recognizing Expectation Rights for Conversion to Permanent Employment (Supreme Court ruling on November 10, 2016, Case No. 2014Du45765)
• Denial of Expectation Rights for Conversion to Permanent Employment Considering Various Circumstances of the Employment Relationship (Supreme Court ruling on April 11, 2013, Case No. 2012Du28913)
4. Rational Grounds for Refusal of Contract Renewal and Conversion to Permanent Employment
• Burden of Proof for Rational Grounds and Specific Criteria for Judgment (Supreme Court ruling on October 12, 2017, Case No. 2015Du44493)
• Recognition of Rational Grounds for Refusal of Renewal Based on Objective and Fair Evaluation (Supreme Court ruling on July 28, 2011, Case No. 2009Du5374)
• Recognition of Rational Grounds for Refusal of Renewal Based on the Physical Condition of Drivers (Seoul High Court ruling on January 31, 2013, Case No. 2012GuHap14637)
• Non-recognition of Rational Grounds for Refusal of Renewal Aimed at Avoiding the Limitation Period in the Fixed-Term Employment Act (Supreme Court ruling on February 27, 2014, Case No. 2011Du17745)
• Criteria for Recognizing Rational Grounds for Refusal of Large-Scale Contract Renewal (Supreme Court ruling on October 12, 2017, Case No. 2015Du44493)
5. Exceptions to the Limitation Period of Fixed-Term Employment Contracts
• Provision of Employment Opportunities in Welfare Policies and Unemployment Measures (Supreme Court ruling on August 18, 2016, Case No. 2014Da211053)
• Determination of Whether the Exceptional Circumstances of the Limitation Period Apply in Cases Not Considered as Teaching Assistants under the Higher Education Act (Gwangju District Court ruling on August 27, 2015, Case No. 2015Nu5558)
• Period of Service under the Exceptional Circumstances of the Limitation Period in the Fixed-Term Employment Act (Supreme Court ruling on November 27, 2014, Case No. 2013Da2672)
• Determination of Whether the Exceeded 2-Year Limitation Period in Cases Where the Period of Service under the Exceptional Circumstances and the Period Not Covered by the Exception Coexist (Daejeon District Court ruling on September 8, 2016, Case No. 2016Nu10884)
Chapter 9: Other Termination of Employment Relationships
1. Reasons for Termination of Employment Relationships
• Types of Termination of Employment Relationships (Supreme Court ruling on October 26, 1993, Case No. 92Da54210)
• Termination of Employment Relationships Due to Retirement
Legal Nature of Retirement Notification (Supreme Court ruling on February 29, 2008, Case No. 2007Da85997)
Calculation Date for Retirement (Supreme Court ruling on November 29, 2018, Case No. 2018Du41082)
2. Termination of Employment Relationships by Resignation and Mutual Agreement
• Voluntary Resignation (Supreme Court ruling on May 16, 2014, Case No. 2012Du26029) (Supreme Court ruling on September 5, 2000, Case No. 99Du8657) (Seoul High Court ruling on May 24, 2012, Case No. 2011Nu33961)
• Mutual Agreement (Supreme Court ruling on April 11, 2003, Case No. 2002Da60528) (Seoul High Court ruling on November 18, 2011, Case No. 2011Nu16430)
• Voluntary Retirement (Supreme Court ruling on July 7, 2000, Case No. 98Da42172) (Supreme Court ruling on November 30, 2007, Case No. 2005Da21647, 21654)
3. Involuntary Expression of Resignation Intent
• Concept of Involuntary Expression of Resignation Intent in Contrast to Voluntary Intent (Supreme Court ruling on August 27, 2015, Case No. 2015Da211630) (Supreme Court ruling on January 19, 2001, Case No. 2000Da51919, 51926)
• Burden of Proof for Involuntary Expression of Resignation Intent (Supreme Court ruling on May 22, 1992, Case No. 92Da2295)
• Submission of Formal Resignation Letter to Demonstrate Accountability for Quality Deficiency (Supreme Court ruling on January 14, 2010, Case No. 2009Du15951)
• Submission of Formal Resignation Letter Premised on Reemployment (Supreme Court ruling on April 29, 2005, Case No. 2004Du14090)
• Submission of Resignation Letter After Receiving Disciplinary Dismissal (Supreme Court ruling on April 25, 2000, Case No. 99Da34475)
• Submission of Resignation Letter in Anticipation of Disciplinary Dismissal (Supreme Court ruling on April 14, 2006, Case No. 2006Du1074)
• Selective Resignation by Workers Following Employer's Instruction to Submit Mass Resignation Letters (Supreme Court ruling on May 26, 1992, Case No. 92Da3670)
• Submission of Resignation Letter by Workers in Response to Employer's Instruction to Submit Mass Resignation Letters (Supreme Court ruling on April 29, 1994, Case No. 93Nu16185)
• Application for Voluntary Retirement by Workers in Response to Employer's Instruction to Submit Mass Retirement Applications (Seoul High Court ruling on April 17, 2015, Case No. 2014Nu3077)
• Application for Voluntary Retirement After Deeming Voluntary Retirement as the Best Option (Supreme Court ruling on September 9, 2005, Case No. 2005Da34407)
• Submission of Resignation Letter to Avoid Application of Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Fixed-Term Employment Act (Supreme Court ruling on February 3, 2017, Case No. 2016Da255910)
4. Resignation Expression Due to Coercion and Deception
• Submission of Resignation Letter After Selection as a Target for Workforce Reduction (Supreme Court ruling on November 25, 2005, Case No. 2005Da38270)
• Unilateral Resignation Coercion or Pressure on an Employee Married to Another Employee (Supreme Court ruling on July 26, 2002, Case No. 2002Da19292) (Supreme Court ruling on November 8, 2002, Case No. 2002Da35379)
• Voluntary Retirement Application Due to Placement on Standby and Notification of Compulsory Retirement (Supreme Court ruling on October 25, 2002, Case No. 2002Du6552)
• Submission of Resignation Letter Due to Employer's Insults and Verbal Abuse (Seoul Administrative Court ruling on July 23, 2013, Case No. 2013GuHap2051)
• Submission of Resignation Letter After Exaggerating Company Situation and Threatening Disadvantages (Supreme Court ruling on January 19, 2001, Case No. 2000Da51919, 51926)
• Submission of Resignation Letter Due to Special Retirement Encouragement (Supreme Court ruling on March 25, 2010, Case No. 2009Da95974)
• Submission of Retirement Application Due to Implicit Indication of Personnel Disadvantages by the Employer (Supreme Court ruling on June 25, 2004, Case No. 2002Da68058)
5. Withdrawal of Resignation Expression
• Withdrawal of Voluntary Resignation (Supreme Court ruling on September 5, 2000, Case No. 99Du8657) (Supreme Court ruling on April 26, 2002, Case No. 2001Da81269) (Seoul High Court ruling on November 3, 2016, Case No. 2016Nu54727) (Seoul High Court ruling on December 10, 2014, Case No. 2014Nu49585)
• Withdrawal of Voluntary Retirement Offer (Supreme Court ruling on April 25, 2003, Case No. 2002Da11458) (Supreme Court ruling on June 27, 2003, Case No. 2003Da1632)
• Withdrawal of Acceptance of Voluntary Retirement (Supreme Court ruling on August 23, 2002, Case No. 2000Da60890, 60906)
6. Burden of Proof for Termination of Employment Relationship
• Cases where the Burden of Proof was Imposed on the Employee (Seoul High Court ruling on October 16, 2013, Case No. 2012Nu34756)
• Cases where the Burden of Proof was Imposed on the Employer (Seoul High Court ruling on May 4, 2018, Case No. 2017Nu84329)
Chapter 10: Employment Relationship in Subcontracting and Dispatch Contracts
1. Implicit Employment Relationship
• Application of the Legal Principle of Corporate Denial for Disguised Subcontracting (Supreme Court ruling on September 23, 2003, Case No. 2003Du3420)
• Recognition of Implicit Employment Relationship for Third-Party Workers (Supreme Court ruling on July 10, 2008, Case No. 2005Da75088)
• Recognition of Implicit Employment Relationship in Formal Dispatch Relationships (Seoul High Court ruling on March 13, 2013, Case No. 2012Na59376)
• Non-recognition of Implicit Employment Relationship in Passenger Service Work (Supreme Court ruling on February 26, 2015, Case No. 2011Da78316)
2. Worker Dispatch Relationship
Criteria for Distinguishing between Subcontracting and Dispatch
• Criteria for Distinguishing between Subcontracting and Dispatch (Supreme Court ruling on February 26, 2015, Case No. 2010Da106436) (Supreme Court ruling on February 26, 2015, Case No. 2010Da93707)
• Placement in Automobile Assembly Process for Simple and Repetitive Task Execution (Supreme Court ruling on July 22, 2010, Case No. 2008Du4367)
• Work and Supervision in Accordance with the Operational Rules of Large Supermarkets (Uijeongbu District Court, Gyeyang Branch, July 14, 2017, Case No. 2015GaHap71412)
3. Direct Employment Recognition
• Legal Recognition of Subcontracting in Cases of Partial Mixed Work (Supreme Court ruling on January 25, 2017, Case No. 2014Da211619)
• Application of Direct Employment Recognition for Illegal Worker Dispatch (Supreme Court ruling on September 18, 2008, Case No. 2007Du22320 Full Bench Decision)
• Even if There Were No Routine Work Orders, if the Principal Managed Work Assignment and Attendance (Supreme Court ruling on July 1, 2011, Case No. 2011Du6097)
• Determination of Worker Dispatch Based on the Substantive Employment Relationship (Supreme Court ruling on February 23, 2012, Case No. 2011Du7076)
• Determination of Working Conditions for Directly Employed Workers (Supreme Court ruling on January 14, 2016, Case No. 2013Da74592) (Supreme Court ruling on March 10, 2016, Case No. 2012Du9758)
• Effectiveness of Collective Agreement on Working Conditions for Directly Employed Workers (Supreme Court ruling on June 23, 2016, Case No. 2012Da108139)
4. Obligation of Direct Employment
• Determination of Dispatch Period and Change of Dispatch Employer (Supreme Court ruling on November 26, 2015, Case No. 2013Da14965)
• Nature of Driver Service Contract Work and Significant Supervision and Control (Seoul High Court ruling on July 1, 2015, Case No. 2013Na2015966)
• Continuation of Work and Supervision and Control after Change of Monitoring Agent's Service Provider (Supreme Court ruling on July 22, 2016, Case No. 2014Da222794)
• Separated Work Space and Significant Supervision and Control (Supreme Court ruling on December 22, 2017, Case No. 2015Da3290)
Chapter 11: Remedies for Discrimination against Non-Regular Workers
1. Requirements for Remedial Action Requests
• Recognition of Eligibility of the Affected Party for Remedial Action, Even in Matters of Wages (Seoul Administrative Court ruling on November 18, 2016, Case No. 2015GuHap70416)
• Continuation of Discriminatory Treatment in Wage Payment Qualifies as Ongoing Discrimination (Supreme Court ruling on December 22, 2011, Case No. 2010Du3237)
• Recognition of Remedy Benefits Even After the Expiry of the Employment Contract (Supreme Court ruling on December 1, 2016, Case No. 2014Du43288)
2. Comparable Workers
Existence of Comparable Workers
• Determination of Similar or Homogeneous Tasks When There is No Substantial Difference in the Content of Main Duties (Supreme Court ruling on March 29, 2012, Case No. 2011Du2132) (Seoul High Court ruling on June 9, 2017, Case No. 2016Nu51667)
• Comparable Workers Limited Not Only to Those with Judicially Recognized Employment Contracts (Supreme Court ruling on November 27, 2014, Case No. 2011Du5391)
• Selection of Comparable Workers When Regular Workers Performing Similar Tasks are in Majority (Seoul Administrative Court ruling on September 24, 2015, Case No. 2015GuHap64053) (Daejeon District Court ruling on January 11, 2017, Case No. 2016GuHap101975)
3. Expansion Trend of Areas Prohibited from Discrimination
• Conceptual Expansion of Areas Prohibited from Discrimination (Seoul Administrative Court ruling on January 12, 2012, Case No. 2011GuHap8734)
• Intersection of Other Legal Violations and Areas Prohibited from Discrimination (Seoul High Court ruling on May 17, 2017, Case No. 2016Nu79078)
4. Unfavorable Treatment
• Criteria for Determining the Existence of Unfavorable Treatment (Supreme Court ruling on September 24, 2014, Case No. 2012Du2207)
• Comparison Method for Determining the Existence of Unfavorable Treatment (Seoul High Court ruling on October 21, 2016, Case No. 2016Nu30189)
5. Rational Reasons
• Assessment of the Existence of Rational Reasons Based on the Principles of Prohibition of Arbitrary Discrimination and Proportionality (Supreme Court ruling on March 29, 2012, Case No. 2011Du2132)
• Recognition of Rational Reasons for Not Including the Period of Fixed-term Employment in the Calculation Period for Long Service Allowance (Supreme Court ruling on September 24, 2014, Case No. 2012Du2207)
• Rejection of Reasons for Non-Payment of Long Service Allowance in the Case of Repeated Renewal of Fixed-term Employment Contracts (Seoul Administrative Court ruling on January 22, 2010, Case No. 2009GuHap28155)
• Reemployment After Retirement Age (Seoul Administrative Court ruling on March 21, 2013, Case No. 2012GuHap30738)
6. Distinctiveness of Monetary Compensation Orders as Corrective Orders (Seoul Administrative Court ruling on September 13, 2018, Case No. 2017GuHap8707)
Section 3: Collective Labor Relations
Chapter 1: Unfair Labor Practices
1. Overview
• Legal Nature of Prohibitions against Unfair Labor Practices (Supreme Court ruling on December 21, 1993, Case No. 93Da11463)
• Qualification of Parties for Remedial Action Requests
o Existence of Independent Remedial Rights of Labor Unions (Supreme Court ruling on September 11, 2008, Case No. 2007Du19249)
o Denial of Capacity of Labor Union with Only One Remaining Member After Establishment (Supreme Court ruling on March 13, 1998, Case No. 97Nu19830)
o Recognition of Succession of Litigation Procedure of Industry-Specific Labor Union When Incorporating Subsidiary Organizations into Industrial Labor Unions due to Organizational Form Changes (Supreme Court ruling on December 29, 2016, Case No. 2015Du1151)
• Validity of Resolution to Change the Organizational Form of Industrial Union Branches into Enterprise-specific Unions (Supreme Court En Banc ruling on February 19, 2016, Case No. 2012Da96120) (Supreme Court ruling on March 24, 2016, Case No. 2013Du12331)
• Scope of Employers as Subjects of Unfair Labor Practices (Supreme Court ruling on March 25, 2010, Case No. 2007Du8881)
• Meaning of Continuous Acts under Article 82(2) of the Labor Union Act (Supreme Court ruling on May 29, 2014, Case No. 2011Du24040)
2. Treatment of Detrimental Actions
• Meaning of Legitimate Acts for the Affairs of Labor Unions (Supreme Court ruling on November 9, 1999, Case No. 99Du4273)
• Meaning of Acts Resulting in Detriment (Supreme Court ruling on August 30, 2004, Case No. 2004Do3891)
• Criteria for Determining Unfair Labor Practices in Dismissals (Competition of Causes) (Supreme Court ruling on April 23, 1991, Case No. 90Nu7685) (Supreme Court ruling on August 26, 1999, Case No. 98Du4672) (Supreme Court ruling on July 30, 1996, Case No. 96Nu587)
• Recognition of Detrimental Treatment in Disciplinary Measures (Supreme Court ruling on March 24, 2006, Case No. 2013Du13068)
• Recognition of Detrimental Treatment in Economic or Job-related Detriments (Supreme Court ruling on September 8, 2006, Case No. 2006Do388)
• Rejection of Recognition of Detrimental Treatment in Exclusion from Promotion (Supreme Court ruling on July 28, 2011, Case No. 2009Du9754)
• Rejection of Recognition of Detrimental Treatment in Personnel Misconduct (Supreme Court ruling on March 26, 2009, Case No. 2007Du25695)
• Recognition of Unfair Labor Practices in Refusal to Conclude Main Contracts Applying Unreasonable Evaluation Criteria (Supreme Court ruling on December 11, 2008, Case No. 2006Du13220)
3. Unfair Employment Contracts
• Violation of Union Shop Agreement and Unfair Labor Practices (Supreme Court ruling on March 24, 1998, Case No. 96Nu16070)
• Acquisition of Union Membership Qualification in Case of Nullity of Union Shop Agreement (Supreme Court ruling on November 12, 2004, Case No. 2003Da264)
• Legitimacy of Union Shop Agreement and Restriction on Union Membership (Supreme Court ruling on October 29, 1996, Case No. 96Da28899)
4. Refusal and Coercion in Collective Bargaining
• Refusal of Collective Bargaining and Illegal Acts (Supreme Court ruling on October 26, 2006, Case No. 2004Da11070)
• Justifiable Reasons for Refusal of Collective Bargaining due to Changes in Circumstances (Supreme Court ruling on February 24, 2006, Case No. 2005Do8606)
5. Domination, Interference, and Financial Aid
• Employer's Freedom of Press and Domination/Interference (Supreme Court ruling on January 10, 2013, Case No. 2011Do15497) (Supreme Court ruling on May 22, 1998, Case No. 97Nu8076)
• Refusal of Union Dues Deduction and Domination/Interference (Supreme Court ruling on May 7, 1997, Case No. 96Nu2057)
• Aggressive Workplace Closure and Domination/Interference (Supreme Court ruling on July 11, 2017, Case No. 2013Do7896)
• Acts of Financial Aid
◦ Provision of Work Vehicles, Snack Locations, etc. (Supreme Court ruling on April 15, 2016, Case No. 2013Du11789)
◦ Excessive Payment to Overtime Exempt Workers (Supreme Court ruling on April 2, 2016, Case No. 2014Du11137)
◦ Substantial Financial Assistance (Supreme Court ruling on January 28, 2016, Case No. 2012Du12457)
◦ Provision of Vehicles (Supreme Court ruling on January 18, 2016, Case No. 2013Da72046)
• Constitutional Incompatibility Decision on Financial Aid Actions (Constitutional Court ruling on May 31, 2018, Case No. 2012HeonBa90)
6. Miscellaneous
• Dismissals and Unfair Labor Practices in Corporate Liquidation Processes (Supreme Court ruling on February 27, 2004, Case No. 2003Du902)
• Employment Succession and Status of Union Members in Mergers (Supreme Court ruling on May 14, 2004, Case No. 2002Da23185)
Chapter 2: Plural Labor Union
1. Overview
• Recognition of Teacher's Labor Union Status under the Labor Union Act (Supreme Court ruling on June 15, 2018, Case Nos. 2014Du12598, 12604)
• Recognition of Broadcaster's Labor Union Status under the Labor Union Act (Supreme Court ruling on October 12, 2018, Case No. 2015Du38092)
• Validity of Resolution Changing the Organizational Form from Industry Union Branches to Company-specific Unions (Supreme Court ruling on March 24, 2016, Case No. 2013Du19370)
• Denial of Acquisition of Negotiation Representative Labor Union Status even if the Sole Union undergoes the Single Negotiation Channel Unification Procedure (Supreme Court ruling on October 31, 2017, Case No. 2016Du36956)
2. Public Notification of Negotiation Demand
• Remedy for Defects in Public Notification of Negotiation Demand (Seoul High Court ruling on February 1, 2013, Case No. 2012GuHa26944)
• Re-notification due to Defects in Public Notification of Negotiation Demand (Seoul High Court ruling on February 1, 2018, Case No. 2017GuHa66817)
3. Public Notification of Negotiation Representative Labor Union Determination
• Meaning of the Date on which the Negotiation Union is Determined as the Starting Date of the Negotiation Representative's Autonomous Determination Period (Supreme Court ruling on February 18, 2016, Case No. 2014Da11550)
• Starting Date of the Negotiation Representative's Autonomous Determination Period when the Labor Committee Makes a Decision (Supreme Court ruling on January 14, 2016, Case Nos. 2013Da84643, 84650)
4. Determination of Negotiation Representative Labor Union by Majority Labor Union
• Interpretation of the Date of Public Notification of Negotiation Union Determination as the Standard for Majority Union Determination (Seoul High Court ruling on December 13, 2013, Case No. 2013GuHa18995)
• Inclusion of Dismissed Employees in the Count of Union Members (Seoul High Court ruling on April 3, 2015, Case No. 2014Nu42959)
5. Decision on Separate Negotiation Units
• Recognition of Separation of Negotiation Units for Regular Employees (Supreme Court ruling on September 13, 2018, Case No. 2015Du39361)
• Denial of Recognition of Separation of Negotiation Units for Environmental Beautification Workers (Seoul High Court ruling on October 19, 2016, Case No. 2016Nu48234)
6. Duty of Fair Representation
• Recognition of Unfair Conduct Liability for Violation of Duty of Fair Representation such as Non-provision of Union Office (Supreme Court ruling on August 30, 2018, Case No. 2017Da218642)
• Recognition of Violation of Duty of Fair Representation due to Non-provision of Union Office (Supreme Court ruling on September 13, 2018, Case No. 2017Du40655)
Connect to the app
