Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Just cause for transfer and consultation as one factor
Supreme Court, July 13, 2023, 2020Da253744 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 전보무효확인의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What criteria decide whether a transfer or reassignment has just cause under Article 23(1) of the Labour Standards Act, and does failure to go through a good-faith consultation procedure with the employee alone make such a measure void?
Holding
A transfer is in principle within the employer's personnel authority and carries a reasonable discretion so long as it stays within the range of business necessity. Just cause exists where the business necessity is weighed against the employee's living disadvantage and that disadvantage does not plainly exceed what a worker must endure, with the procedures required in good faith, including consultation, counted as one factor; failure to go through such a procedure does not by itself void the measure. On these facts the Supreme Court found a business need for the move to back-office work, no disadvantage beyond the tolerable range, and no invalidity despite the lack of an explanation, and dismissed the appeal.
Points at issue, verbatim
을에게 지점장으로서의 역량 부족 등 후선배치사유가 있어 전보명령을 할 업무상 필요성이 있었던 점, 을에게 발생하는 생활상의 불이익은 전보명령의 업무상 필요성에 비추어 근로자로서 수인해야 하는 범위를 현저하게 벗어난 것이라고 평가하기 어려운 점, 후선배치사유 등을 설명하거나 소명의 기회를 부여하지 않았다는 사정만으로 전보명령이 무효가 된다고 볼 수 없는 점 등을 종합하면
Unofficial English translation
there being grounds for the back-office assignment such as B's lack of capability as a branch manager and there being business necessity for issuing the transfer order, that the disadvantages in livelihood arising to B cannot readily be evaluated as conspicuously exceeding the range that must be endured as an employee in light of the business necessity of the transfer order, and that the transfer order cannot be regarded as void merely on the ground that the grounds for the back-office assignment, etc. were not explained or that no opportunity to give an explanation was afforded, upon comprehensively considering
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
전직처분 등이 정당한 이유가 있는지는 해당 전직처분 등의 업무상의 필요성과 전직처분 등에 따른 근로자의 생활상의 불이익을 비교·교량하고, 근로자 측과의 협의 등 그 전직처분 등의 과정에서 신의칙상 요구되는 절차를 거쳤는지 여부를 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether a disposition of transfer, etc. constitutes a justifiable reason must be determined by comparing and weighing the business necessity of the relevant disposition of transfer, etc. against the employee's disadvantages in livelihood arising from the disposition of transfer, etc., and by comprehensively considering whether the procedures required by the principle of good faith in the process of such disposition of transfer, etc., such as consultation with the employee, were followed.
Factors
- 을에게 지점장으로서의 역량 부족 등 후선배치사유가 있어 전보명령을 할 업무상 필요성이 있었던 점
- 을에게 발생하는 생활상의 불이익은 전보명령의 업무상 필요성에 비추어 근로자로서 수인해야 하는 범위를 현저하게 벗어난 것이라고 평가하기 어려운 점
- 후선배치사유 등을 설명하거나 소명의 기회를 부여하지 않았다는 사정만으로 전보명령이 무효가 된다고 볼 수 없는 점
Unofficial English translation
• there being grounds for the back-office assignment such as B's lack of capability as a branch manager and there being business necessity for issuing the transfer order
• the disadvantages in livelihood arising to B cannot readily be evaluated as conspicuously exceeding the range that must be endured as an employee in light of the business necessity of the transfer order
• the transfer order cannot be regarded as void merely on the ground that the grounds for the back-office assignment, etc. were not explained or that no opportunity to give an explanation was afforded
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2009. 4. 23. 선고 2007두20157 판결(공2009상, 760)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20157 decided April 23, 2009 (Gong 2009 Sang, 760)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2009. 4. 23. 선고 2007두20157 판결(공2009상, 760), 대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2016두44162 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where failure to consult does not by itself void a transfer, how much explanation or opportunity to give reasons must the employer have offered before the good-faith procedure counts as satisfied?
A later decision that sets out how far the consultation procedure must go, or an amendment to Article 23(1) of the Labour Standards Act, would require this entry to be read again. A file in which base pay rather than an allowance was cut, or the employee's grade was lowered, would call for the tolerable-disadvantage test to be run again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 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 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Both readings record the burden of proof as not addressed, so the listed difference is not visible in the values; the judgment sets out no allocation of proof, which both readings reflect.
위 전보명령은 근로기준법에 위반되거나 권리남용에 해당하지 않아 유효하다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where failure to consult does not by itself void a transfer, how much explanation or opportunity to give reasons must the employer have offered before the good-faith procedure counts as satisfied?” vs Independent “When would a transfer-related pay reduction and other disadvantages substantially exceed the burden an employee should ordinarily tolerate?”
The primary reading asks how much explanation the employer must give before the good-faith procedure counts as satisfied, while the independent reading asks when a pay cut and other disadvantages would exceed what an employee must tolerate.
을에게 지점장으로서의 역량 부족 등 후선배치사유가 있어 전보명령을 할 업무상 필요성이 있었던 점, 을에게 발생하는 생활상의 불이익은 전보명령의 업무상 필요성에 비추어 근로자로서 수인해야 하는 범위를 현저하게 벗어난 것이라고 평가하기 어려운 점, 후선배치사유 등을 설명하거나 소명의 기회를 부여하지 않았다는 사정만으로 전보명령이 무효가 된다고 볼 수 없는 점 등을 종합하면Raw 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 17 July 2020 (2019Na2055416), held that the bank's order moving the plaintiff from branch manager to business promotion officer was valid. It relied on the bank's long-standing back-office placement system and its staff management criteria, which gave grounds for the move, the absence of any unusual treatment of the plaintiff compared with other staff, and the limited nature of the disadvantage: no change of grade, a 20.2% pay cut which it took to have arisen from a reduction in job allowance rather than base pay, work closer to the plaintiff's home, and the possibility of returning to front-line duties.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the stated law and the record, it held that the court below had not misapplied the law on transfers and back-office placement orders, failed to examine what it needed to, or omitted a finding, and dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A transfer with no business necessity behind it, since the Court rested validity on the need to change the staffing arrangement and on the rationality of selecting that employee.
- A transfer whose living disadvantage plainly exceeds what a worker must endure, so that the balance between necessity and disadvantage comes out the other way.
- A measure that does not change the type, content or place of the work the employee provides, since the rule addresses transfers and reassignments of that kind.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the three points the Court relied on: whether the employer's placement criteria were applied to this employee as to others, how the disadvantage was made up, here a cut in job allowance with no change of grade and work nearer home, and whether a return to front-line duties was possible. Then check separately what explanation or chance to give reasons the employer in fact offered, since that procedural failure was treated as one factor and not as a ground of invalidity on its own.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 근로자에 대한 전직이나 전보처분에 근로기준법 제23조 제1항에서 정한 정당한 이유가 있는지 판단하는 기준 및 근로자 측과 성실한 협의절차를 거치지 않았다는 사정만으로 전직처분 등이 무효인지 여부(소극) [2] 갑 은행이 을을 지점장에서 업무추진역으로 후선배치하는 전보명령을 하자 을이 전보명령의 무효확인을 구한 사안에서, 을에게 지점장으로서의 역량 부족 등 후선배치사유가 있어 전보명령을 할 업무상 필요성이 있었던 점, 을에게 발생하는 생활상의 불이익은 전보명령의 업무상 필요성에 비추어 근로자로서 수인해야 하는 범위를 현저하게 벗어난 것이라고 평가하기 어려운 점, 후선배치사유 등을 설명하거나 소명의 기회를 부여하지 않았다는 사정만으로 전보명령이 무효가 된다고 볼 수 없는 점 등을 종합하면 위 전보명령은 근로기준법에 위반되거나 권리남용에 해당하지 않아 유효하다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criteria for determining whether a disposition of transfer or assignment with respect to an employee constitutes a justifiable reason as prescribed in Article 23 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, and whether a disposition of transfer, etc. is void solely on the ground that the procedure of sincere consultation with the employee was not conducted (negative) [2] In a case where, upon Bank A's issuing a transfer order assigning B from branch manager to business promotion officer, B sought confirmation of the invalidity of the transfer order, a case in which the court below's determination was proper, holding that the foregoing transfer order is valid as it does not violate the Labor Standards Act nor constitute an abuse of rights, upon comprehensively considering that there were grounds for the back-office assignment such as B's lack of capability as a branch manager and that there was business necessity for issuing the transfer order, that the disadvantages in livelihood arising to B cannot readily be evaluated as conspicuously exceeding the range that must be endured as an employee in light of the business necessity of the transfer order, and that the transfer order cannot be regarded as void merely on the ground that the grounds for the back-office assignment, etc. were not explained or that no opportunity to give an explanation was afforded
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 근로기준법 제23조 제1항 [2] 근로기준법 제23조 제1항
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