Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Dismissal protection for probationary workers on treatment leave
Supreme Court, Apr. 29, 2021, 2018Du43958 (judgment)
Case name: 부당해고구제재심판정취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the leave necessary for recovery from an industrial injury or disease under Article 23(2) of the Labour Standards Act include partial leave, judged by what standard, and may an employer dismiss a probationary worker or refuse to conclude the main contract during that period?
Holding
Leave necessary for recovery includes not only total absence from work but also partial leave, where the worker has lost part of normal working capacity, finds it hard to work at that capacity, continues treatment and provides labour only in part. Whether such leave is necessary is decided by weighing the degree of the injury, the course and method of treatment, the content and intensity of the work and the worker's condition. The same protection from dismissal applies to a probationary worker, so during that period the employer may neither dismiss the worker nor refuse to conclude the main contract.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
업무상 재해를 입은 근로자를 보호하기 위한 해고 제한의 필요성은 시용 근로자에 대하여도 동일하게 인정되므로, 시용 근로관계에 있는 근로자가 업무상 부상 등으로 요양이 필요한 휴업 기간 중에는 사용자가 시용 근로자를 해고하거나 본계약 체결을 거부하지 못한다.
Unofficial English translation
Since the need to restrict dismissal in order to protect an employee who has suffered a work-related disaster is recognized equally for a probationary employee, an employer may not dismiss a probationary employee under a probationary employment relationship or refuse to conclude a principal contract during a leave of absence necessary for medical treatment due to a work-related injury or the like.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이 경우 요양을 위하여 휴업이 필요한지는 업무상 부상 등의 정도, 치료 과정 및 치료 방법, 업무의 내용과 강도, 근로자의 용태 등 객관적인 사정을 종합하여 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In such a case, whether a leave of absence is necessary for medical treatment must be determined by comprehensively considering objective circumstances such as the degree of the work-related injury or the like, the course of treatment and the method of treatment, the content and intensity of the work, and the employee's condition and other circumstances.
Factors
- 요양을 위하여 필요한 휴업에는 정상적인 노동력을 상실하여 출근을 전혀 할 수 없는 경우뿐만 아니라
- 노동력을 일부 상실하여 정상적인 노동력으로 근로를 제공하기 곤란한 상태에서 치료 등 요양을 계속하면서 부분적으로 근로를 제공하는 부분 휴업도 포함된다
- 업무상 부상 등의 정도, 치료 과정 및 치료 방법, 업무의 내용과 강도, 근로자의 용태 등 객관적인 사정을 종합하여 판단하여야 한다
- 업무상 재해를 입은 근로자를 보호하기 위한 해고 제한의 필요성은 시용 근로자에 대하여도 동일하게 인정되므로
Unofficial English translation
• the leave of absence necessary for medical treatment includes not only cases in which the employee has lost normal labor capacity and is entirely unable to attend work,
• but also a partial leave of absence, in which the employee, while in a state in which it is difficult to provide labor with normal labor capacity due to a partial loss of labor capacity, continues treatment or other medical care while partially providing labor
• it must be determined by comprehensively considering objective circumstances such as the degree of the work-related injury or the like, the course of treatment and the method of treatment, the content and intensity of the work, and the employee's condition and other circumstances
• Since the need to restrict dismissal in order to protect an employee who has suffered a work-related disaster is recognized equally for a probationary employee,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2011. 11. 10. 선고 2009다63205 판결(공2011하, 2534)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da63205 decided November 10, 2011 (Gong 2011 Ha, 2534)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2011. 11. 10. 선고 2009다63205 판결(공2011하, 2534)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a probationary worker keeps attending out of concern that leave will count against the main contract, what evidence shows that leave was in fact needed for recovery?
The retrial judgment of the Seoul High Court will show how the test on partial leave is applied to these facts. Any amendment to Article 23(2) of the Labour Standards Act, or a later Supreme Court decision distinguishing full from partial leave, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 5 (factors), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reading treats the test as a holistic weighing of objective circumstances, while the independent reading treats the same circumstances as stated requirements. The holding says the necessity must be judged by weighing these factors, so both readings are available.
부분적으로 근로를 제공하는 부분 휴업도 포함된다.Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “요양을 위하여 필요한 휴업에는 정상적인 노동력을 상실하여 출근을 전혀 할 수 없는 경우뿐만 아니라 / 노동력을 일부 상실하여 정상적인 노동력으로 근로를 제공하기 곤란한 상태에서 치료 등 요양을 계속하면서 부분적으로 근로를 제공하는 부분 휴업도 포함된다 / 업무상 부상 등의 정도, 치료 과정 및 치료 방법, 업무의 내용과 강도, 근로자의 용태 등 객관적인 사정을 종합하여 판단하여야 한다 / 업무상 재해를 입은 근로자를 보호하기 위한 해고 제한의 필요성은 시용 근로자에 대하여도 동일하게 인정되므로” vs Independent “업무상 부상 등의 정도 / 치료 과정 및 치료 방법 / 업무의 내용과 강도 / 근로자의 용태”
The primary reading lists the partial-leave scope and the probationary-worker rationale, while the independent reading lists only the four objective circumstances for judging necessity. The independent set omits the partial-leave and probationary-protection reasoning that is central to the holding.
업무상 부상 등의 정도Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When a probationary worker keeps attending out of concern that leave will count against the main contract, what evidence shows that leave was in fact needed for recovery?” vs Independent “When does the protected recuperative leave end if a probationary employee gradually resumes normal duties?”
The primary reading asks what evidence shows that leave was needed when a probationary worker kept attending, while the independent reading asks when the protected leave period ends after gradual return to duties. These are different unresolved points.
업무상 재해를 입은 근로자를 보호하기 위한 해고 제한의 필요성은 시용 근로자에 대하여도 동일하게 인정되므로, 시용 근로관계에 있는 근로자가 업무상 부상 등으로 요양이 필요한 휴업 기간 중에는 사용자가 시용 근로자를 해고하거나 본계약 체결을 거부하지 못한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 6 April 2018 (2017Nu75509), held that the participant, the probationary worker whom the employer had dismissed, was either attending work normally at the time of the dismissal or was not in a position where leave was needed for recovery, and on that basis treated the dismissal as falling outside the restriction in Article 23(2) of the Labour Standards Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the rule restricting dismissal under Article 23(2) of the Labour Standards Act or failed to conduct the necessary hearing, and that this affected the outcome. It pointed to findings suggesting the participant had at least partly lost the capacity needed for the work as a research assistant, had been moved to lighter assembly work, was recorded as able to work only partly during treatment, and had kept attending out of fear that leave during probation would count against the main contract. The whole judgment was reversed and the case sent back to the Seoul High Court for retrial, on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A probationary worker who has lost no part of normal working capacity and continues regular attendance, so that no leave, full or partial, is needed for recovery.
- Treatment continued while the worker provides labour at full normal capacity, since partial leave presupposes a state in which working at that capacity is hard.
- A dismissal or refusal to conclude the main contract falling outside the treatment-leave period and the 30 days following it, since Article 23(2) limits dismissal only for that span.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the four objective circumstances the Court named: the degree of the injury and the treatment, the content and intensity of the work as assigned, and the worker's condition, including any medical opinion on partial work during treatment. Note also that the Court did not itself decide the facts, speaking only of a likelihood that leave was needed at least in part, and that the protection runs only through the leave period and the 30 days after it.
From the official text
Points at issue
일정 기간 해고를 절대적으로 제한하는 근로기준법 제23조 제2항의 규정 취지 / 요양을 위하여 필요한 휴업에 부분 휴업도 포함되는지 여부(적극) 및 요양을 위하여 휴업이 필요한지 판단하는 기준 / 시용 근로관계에 있는 근로자가 업무상 부상 등으로 요양이 필요한 휴업 기간 중에 사용자가 시용 근로자를 해고하거나 본계약 체결을 거부할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
The purport of the provision of Article 23 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, which absolutely restricts dismissal for a specified period / Whether a partial leave of absence is also included in the leave of absence necessary for medical treatment (affirmative) and the criteria for determining whether a leave of absence is necessary for medical treatment / Whether, during a leave of absence necessary for medical treatment due to a work-related injury or the like, an employer may dismiss a probationary employee under a probationary employment relationship or refuse to conclude a principal contract (negative)
Summary of the holding
근로기준법 제23조 제2항은, 사용자는 근로자가 업무상 부상 또는 질병의 요양을 위하여 휴업한 기간과 그 후 30일 동안은 해고하지 못한다고 규정하여 해고를 제한하고 있다. 이는 근로자가 업무상의 재해로 인하여 노동력을 상실하고 있는 기간과 노동력을 회복하는 데 필요한 그 후의 30일간은 근로자를 실직의 위협으로부터 절대적으로 보호하기 위한 것이다. 이와 같은 규정의 내용과 입법 목적에 비추어 보면, 요양을 위하여 필요한 휴업에는 정상적인 노동력을 상실하여 출근을 전혀 할 수 없는 경우뿐만 아니라, 노동력을 일부 상실하여 정상적인 노동력으로 근로를 제공하기 곤란한 상태에서 치료 등 요양을 계속하면서 부분적으로 근로를 제공하는 부분 휴업도 포함된다. 이 경우 요양을 위하여 휴업이 필요한지는 업무상 부상 등의 정도, 치료 과정 및 치료 방법, 업무의 내용과 강도, 근로자의 용태 등 객관적인 사정을 종합하여 판단하여야 한다. 위와 같이 근로자의 노동력 회복을 도모하고 생계를 유지하도록 일정 기간 해고를 절대적으로 제한하는 근로기준법 제23조 제2항의 내용과 취지 및 판단 기준 등에 비추어 볼 때, 업무상 재해를 입은 근로자를 보호하기 위한 해고 제한의 필요성은 시용 근로자에 대하여도 동일하게 인정되므로, 시용 근로관계에 있는 근로자가 업무상 부상 등으로 요양이 필요한 휴업 기간 중에는 사용자가 시용 근로자를 해고하거나 본계약 체결을 거부하지 못한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
근로기준법 제23조 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger