Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Selecting the comparator worker in a Labour Commission discrimination remedy case
Supreme Court, Nov. 30, 2023, 2019Du53952 (judgment)
Case name: 차별시정재심판정취소[시립 의료원 소속 기간제근로자가 정규직 근로자에 비해 차별적 처우를 받았다는 이유로 차별시정을 구한 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Can a worker who does not exist in the job structure be taken as the comparator for deciding whether a fixed-term worker received discriminatory treatment, and how may a labour commission lawfully select the comparator within its authority?
Holding
A comparator must be selected from among workers who have concluded an indefinite-term contract. Such a worker need not be actually working at the business or workplace, but one who does not exist in the job structure cannot be taken as the comparator. Considering the purpose of the discrimination remedy system, its ex officio character and the nature of the comparability assessment, a labour commission may, after investigation and hearing, select a suitable comparator within the range of identity with the comparator the applicant asserted.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 근로자가 당해 사업 또는 사업장에 실제로 근무하고 있을 필요는 없으나 직제에 존재하지 않는 근로자를 비교대상 근로자로 삼을 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Although it is not necessary for such an employee to actually be working at the relevant business or place of business, an employee who is not included in the organizational structure cannot be regarded as a comparative employee.
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
이러한 노동위원회 차별시정제도의 취지와 직권주의적 특성, 비교대상성 판단의 성격 등을 고려하면, 노동위원회는 신청인이 주장한 비교대상 근로자와 동일성이 인정되는 범위 내에서 조사, 심리를 거쳐 적합한 근로자를 비교대상 근로자로 선정할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
In consideration of the purpose of such discrimination redress system of the Labor Relations Commission, its ex officio characteristics, the nature of the determination of comparability, and the like, the Labor Relations Commission may, through investigation and deliberation within the scope in which identity with the comparative employee asserted by the applicant is recognized, select a suitable employee as the comparative employee.
Factors
- 기간의 정함이 없는 근로계약을 체결한 근로자 중에서 선정하여야 하고
- 직제에 존재하지 않는 근로자를 비교대상 근로자로 삼을 수는 없다
- 신청인이 주장한 비교대상 근로자와 동일성이 인정되는 범위 내에서
- 이 단계를 실체적으로나 절차적으로나 지나치게 엄격하게 보면
- 노동위원회 차별시정제도의 취지와 직권주의적 특성, 비교대상성 판단의 성격 등을 고려하면
Unofficial English translation
• it must be selected from among employees who have entered into employment contracts without a fixed term, and
• an employee who is not included in the organizational structure cannot be regarded as a comparative employee
• within the scope in which identity with the comparative employee asserted by the applicant is recognized,
• If this stage is viewed too strictly, whether substantively or procedurally,
• in consideration of the purpose of the Labor Relations Commission's discrimination redress system, its ex officio characteristics, the nature of the determination of comparability, and the like,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 9. 26. 선고 2016두47857 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2016Du47857 decided September 26, 2019.
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2019. 9. 26. 선고 2016두47857 판결(공2019하, 2047)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How far may a labour commission depart from the individual workers the applicant named and still remain within the range of identity with the asserted comparator?
A later decision treating the actual existence of the comparator as required, or holding that a given designation exceeded the applicant's assertion, would call for this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Articles 8 to 10 of the Fixed-term and Part-time Workers Act or to Article 23 of the Labour Relations Commission Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Both codes say 요건 제시, so the flagged difference likely lies in framing: the primary presents the commission's selection as a holistic statutory process, while the independent makes identity the decisive requirement.
노동위원회는 신청인이 주장한 비교대상 근로자와 동일성이 인정되는 범위 내에서 조사, 심리를 거쳐 적합한 근로자를 비교대상 근로자로 선정할 수 있다.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 4 September 2019 (2018Nu70815), accepted the plaintiff's claim to cancel the re-determination. It held that the Central Labour Commission should have taken only two named regular workers as the comparator, because the comparator must be a worker actually performing work in the plaintiff's workplace, and a designation that exists only in the job structure, 'a regular auxiliary worker in grade 3, step 3 of the Central Supply Room', was not a lawful selection. It also held that the defendant's reliance on three other workers in this cancellation suit impermissibly added or changed grounds.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the comparator need not be a worker actually working at the workplace and that the Central Labour Commission, having investigated the work of the regular auxiliary workers as a whole and held a hearing, was entitled to take the grade 3, step 3 regular auxiliary worker as the comparator within the range of identity with what the applicant asserted, so that the plaintiff's defence was not substantively prejudiced. It also held that the defendant had merely cited the other workers as a way of proving that regular auxiliary workers doing similar work existed, without changing the comparator taken in the re-determination. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A comparator who does not exist in the job structure of the business or workplace, since the Court barred such a worker from being taken as the comparator.
- A selection that falls outside the range of identity with the comparator the applicant asserted, since the Commission's authority reaches only within that range.
- A case where designating a different worker group caused the party subject to the order substantive disadvantage in exercising its defence, since the Court relied on the absence of such prejudice.
Record verification notes
Set out what the applicant asserted as the comparator at the first application and again at the re-hearing, since the Commission's authority was measured against that assertion. Then match the designation against the Commission's investigation record, here the field investigation report and the investigation report covering the work of the regular auxiliary workers as a whole. Finally, check whether the designation, which differed from the applicant's own examples, prejudiced the employer's defence.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 기간제근로자에 대하여 차별적 처우가 있었는지 판단하기 위한 전제가 되는 동종 또는 유사한 업무에 종사하는 비교대상 근로자로 직제에 존재하지 않는 근로자를 선정할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 노동위원회가 기간제근로자에 대한 차별적 처우가 합리적인지 판단하기 위한 비교대상 근로자를 권한 범위 내에서 적법하게 선정하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
[1] As a premise for determining whether discriminatory treatment of a fixed-term employee has occurred, whether an employee who is not included in the organizational structure may be selected as a comparative employee engaged in the same or similar work (negative) [2] The method by which the Labor Relations Commission lawfully selects a comparative employee within the scope of its authority in order to determine whether discriminatory treatment of a fixed-term employee is reasonable
Summary of the holding
[1] 기간제 및 단시간근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘기간제법’이라 한다) 제8조 제1항의 규정 내용과 기간제근로자에 대해 실제로 존재하는 불합리한 차별을 시정하고자 하는 기간제법의 취지 등을 고려하면, 기간제근로자에 대하여 차별적 처우가 있었는지를 판단하기 위한 전제가 되는 동종 또는 유사한 업무에 종사하는 비교대상 근로자는 기간의 정함이 없는 근로계약을 체결한 근로자 중에서 선정하여야 하고, 이러한 근로자가 당해 사업 또는 사업장에 실제로 근무하고 있을 필요는 없으나 직제에 존재하지 않는 근로자를 비교대상 근로자로 삼을 수는 없다. [2] 기간제 및 단시간근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘기간제법’이라 한다)은 기간제근로자에 대한 불합리한 차별을 신속하게 시정하고자 노동위원회에 의한 차별시정제도를 마련하였다(기간제법 제8조, 제9조). 노동위원회는 조사관을 통한 사업장의 업무상황 조사, 관련자에 대한 진술이나 서류제출 요구 등과 같은 직권 조사권한이 있고, 심문기일에 직권으로 증인을 출석시켜 질문할 수도 있다(기간제법 제10조, 노동위원회법 제23조). 비교대상 근로자의 선정은 차별적 처우가 합리적인지를 판단하기 위한 전제가 되는데, 이 단계를 실체적으로나 절차적으로나 지나치게 엄격하게 보면 차별 여부에 대한 실체 판단에 나아갈 수 없게 되어 차별시정제도를 통한 근로자 구제가 미흡하게 될 우려가 있다. 이러한 노동위원회 차별시정제도의 취지와 직권주의적 특성, 비교대상성 판단의 성격 등을 고려하면, 노동위원회는 신청인이 주장한 비교대상 근로자와 동일성이 인정되는 범위 내에서 조사, 심리를 거쳐 적합한 근로자를 비교대상 근로자로 선정할 수 있다.
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
[1] 기간제 및 단시간근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률 제8조 제1항 [2] 기간제 및 단시간근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률 제8조, 제9조, 제10조, 노동위원회법 제23조
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