Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Just cause for a leave order and the duty to reinstate
Supreme Court, Feb. 10, 2022, 2020Da301155 (judgment)
Case name: 징계무효확인등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When an employer orders a worker to take leave under a leave provision in the rules of employment or a collective agreement, when does that order have just cause within Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and must the employer order reinstatement once the ground for the leave has been extinguished?
Holding
Just cause exists only where the leave ground set by the rules of employment or a collective agreement has arisen and, taking together the purpose and actual function of that provision, the reasonableness of exercising the power to order leave and the loss in status and economics the worker suffers, the worker is found unable to work for a considerable period or to be in a position where work would be highly improper. Detention on a criminal charge was such a ground here, but it was extinguished when the plaintiff was released on bail, so unless special circumstances existed the defendant hospital had to order reinstatement without delay under Article 35(1) of its personnel rules. The mere possibility that bail might be cancelled or a prison sentence imposed did not show that providing work was highly improper.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
취업규칙이나 단체협약 등이 정한 휴직사유가 발생하였으며, 당해 휴직 근거 규정의 설정 목적과 그 실제 기능, 휴직명령권 발동의 합리성 유무 및 그로 인하여 근로자가 받게 될 신분상·경제상의 불이익 등 구체적인 사정을 모두 참작하여 근로자가 상당한 기간에 걸쳐 근로를 제공할 수 없다거나 근로를 제공하는 것이 매우 부적당하다고 인정되는 경우에만 사용자의 휴직명령에 정당한 이유가 있다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
A leave-of-absence order of the employer must be regarded as having a justifiable reason only where the ground for leave of absence set forth in the rules of employment, a collective agreement, or the like has arisen, and only where, taking into account all the circumstances, including the purpose for which the relevant provision on leave of absence was established and its actual function, the reasonableness of the exercise of the power to order a leave of absence, and the disadvantageous effects in status and in economic terms that the employee will suffer as a result thereof, it is recognized that the employee is unable to provide labor for a considerable period of time, or that the provision of labor is deemed highly inappropriate.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 2017년 4월분부터의 임금 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed with respect to the claim for wages from April 2017, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. The remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
근로자가 상당한 기간에 걸쳐 근로를 제공할 수 없다거나 근로를 제공하는 것이 매우 부적당하다고 인정되는 경우에만 사용자의 휴직명령에 정당한 이유가 있다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
that the employee is unable to provide labor for a considerable period of time, or that the provision of labor is deemed highly inappropriate, the employer's order to take a leave of absence must be regarded as having a justifiable reason only.
Factors
- 취업규칙이나 단체협약 등이 정한 휴직사유가 발생하였으며
- 당해 휴직 근거 규정의 설정 목적과 그 실제 기능
- 휴직명령권 발동의 합리성 유무
- 그로 인하여 근로자가 받게 될 신분상·경제상의 불이익 등 구체적인 사정을 모두 참작하여
- 구속으로 인해 현실적인 근로제공이 불가능한 경우
Unofficial English translation
• the ground for leave of absence set forth in the rules of employment, a collective agreement, or the like has arisen
• the purpose for which the relevant provision on leave of absence was established and its actual function
• the reasonableness of the exercise of the power to order a leave of absence
• taking into account all the circumstances, including the disadvantageous effects in status and in economic terms that the employee will suffer as a result thereof
• where it is actually impossible to provide labor due to detention
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1992. 11. 13. 선고 92다16690 판결, 대법원 2005. 2. 18. 선고 2003다63029 판결(공2005상, 463)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 92Da16690 decided November 13, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63029 decided February 18, 2005 (Gong 2005 Sang, 463)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1992. 11. 13. 선고 92다16690 판결, 대법원 2005. 2. 18. 선고 2003다63029 판결(공2005상, 463)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Beyond the risk that bail may be cancelled or a prison sentence imposed, what circumstances would make it highly improper for a worker released on bail to provide work?
The Daegu High Court's remand judgment, finding when reinstatement should have been ordered and what wages fell due from April 2017, will show how the rule works in practice. Any later decision on when the ground for a leave order is extinguished, or an amendment to Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, would require this entry to be read again.
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 “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
The primary reading states the requirement (inability to work for a considerable period or highly improper work) as a rule, while the independent reading describes the court as weighing the circumstances together; the judgment sets out the test and then applies it to the facts.
당해 휴직 근거 규정의 설정 목적과 그 실제 기능, 휴직명령권 발동의 합리성 유무 및 그로 인하여 근로자가 받게 될 신분상·경제상의 불이익 등 구체적인 사정을 모두 참작하여Raw 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 Daegu High Court, in its judgment of 9 December 2020 (2020Na21412), rejected the plaintiff's claim on the reasoning it gave, holding that the plaintiff was in a position where providing work was highly improper and that the refusal of reinstatement could therefore not be called unlawful. The official text records only that the court below decided on those stated reasons, without setting out what they were.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court considered that Article 31(2) of the personnel rules appeared to set the ground for leave as a case in which detention makes the actual provision of work impossible. The plaintiff's detention on 9 February 2017 gave rise to that ground and left him unable to work for a considerable period, so the leave order had just cause, but after his release on 6 April 2017 the ground was extinguished and, absent special circumstances, the defendant had to order reinstatement without delay. The mere possibility that bail might be cancelled or a prison sentence imposed did not establish that work was highly improper, so the court below had misread the law on the lawfulness of the leave order; the part on wages from April 2017 was reversed and remanded, while the rejection of the February and March claims was right in conclusion and the rest of the appeal was dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A worker who remains detained after the leave order, so that the ground set by the personnel regulation has not been extinguished.
- A case where special circumstances show that a released worker's provision of work is highly improper, beyond the risk of bail cancellation or a prison sentence.
- A claim for wages covering the period of detention, when the leave order had just cause at the time.
Record verification notes
Read the leave provision in the rules of employment or the collective agreement closely: whether it is keyed to detention rather than indictment, and how far the leave period runs, decided what ground was set. Then fix the dates on the file, the detention, the release on bail, the application for reinstatement, the refusal and the date work was in fact resumed, since the remand court must find when reinstatement should have been ordered and what wages fell due from April 2017. Set against that any special circumstances the defendant raises beyond the risk of bail cancellation or a prison sentence.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 취업규칙이나 단체협약 등의 휴직 근거 규정에 따른 사용자의 휴직명령에 근로기준법 제23조 제1항에서 정한 ‘정당한 이유’가 있는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 갑 병원의 인사규정에 ‘직원이 형사사건으로 구속 기소되었을 때에는 휴직을 명할 수 있고, 그 경우 휴직기간은 최초의 형 판결 시까지로 하되 계속 구속될 경우 확정판결 시까지 연장 가능하며, 휴직한 직원은 그 사유가 소멸된 때에는 30일 이내에 복직을 신청하여야 하고 갑 병원은 지체 없이 복직을 명하여야 한다.’고 규정하고 있는데, 을이 갑 병원의 근로자로 근무하던 중 징역형을 선고받고 구속되자 갑 병원이 인사규정에 따라 휴직을 명하였고, 을이 항소한 후 보석허가결정을 받아 석방된 다음 복직신청을 하였으나, 갑 병원은 휴직사유가 소멸되었다고 볼 수 없다는 이유로 복직신청을 거부한 사안에서, 휴직명령에는 정당한 이유가 있었다고 볼 수 있으나, 을이 석방된 이후에는 휴직명령의 사유가 소멸하였으므로 특별한 사정이 없는 한 갑 병원은 을의 복직신청에 대하여 지체 없이 복직을 명하였어야 한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criteria for determining whether an employer's order to take a leave of absence, pursuant to the grounds for leave of absence under the rules of employment, a collective agreement, or the like, is supported by a "justifiable reason" as provided in Article 23 paragraph (1) of the Labor Standards Act [2] A Hospital's personnel regulations provide that "when an employee is detained and indicted in a criminal case, the employee may be ordered to take a leave of absence, in which case the period of leave shall run until the first judgment of sentence, but where the employee remains detained, the period may be extended until a final and conclusive judgment; an employee who has taken such leave must apply for reinstatement within 30 days after the ground therefor ceases to exist, and A Hospital must order reinstatement without delay." B, while working as an employee of A Hospital, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and taken into custody, whereupon A Hospital ordered a leave of absence pursuant to the personnel regulations; B filed an appeal and, after obtaining a decision granting bail, was released and applied for reinstatement, but A Hospital refused the application on the ground that the ground for the leave of absence could not be regarded as having ceased to exist. In such a case, held, that although the leave-of-absence order had a justifiable reason, once B was released the ground for the leave-of-absence order ceased to exist, and accordingly, absent special circumstances, A Hospital should have ordered reinstatement without delay in response to B's application for reinstatement
Summary of the holding
[1] 근로기준법 제23조 제1항에서 사용자는 근로자에게 정당한 이유 없이 휴직을 명하지 못한다고 제한하고 있는 점에 비추어 보면, 취업규칙이나 단체협약 등이 정한 휴직사유가 발생하였으며, 당해 휴직 근거 규정의 설정 목적과 그 실제 기능, 휴직명령권 발동의 합리성 유무 및 그로 인하여 근로자가 받게 될 신분상·경제상의 불이익 등 구체적인 사정을 모두 참작하여 근로자가 상당한 기간에 걸쳐 근로를 제공할 수 없다거나 근로를 제공하는 것이 매우 부적당하다고 인정되는 경우에만 사용자의 휴직명령에 정당한 이유가 있다고 보아야 한다. [2] 갑 병원의 인사규정에 ‘직원이 형사사건으로 구속 기소되었을 때에는 휴직을 명할 수 있고, 그 경우 휴직기간은 최초의 형 판결 시까지로 하되 계속 구속될 경우 확정판결 시까지 연장 가능하며, 휴직한 직원은 그 사유가 소멸된 때에는 30일 이내에 복직을 신청하여야 하고 갑 병원은 지체 없이 복직을 명하여야 한다.’고 규정하고 있는데, 을이 갑 병원의 근로자로 근무하던 중 징역형을 선고받고 구속되자 갑 병원이 인사규정에 따라 휴직을 명하였고, 을이 항소한 후 보석허가결정을 받아 석방된 다음 복직신청을 하였으나, 갑 병원은 휴직사유가 소멸되었다고 볼 수 없다는 이유로 복직신청을 거부한 사안에서, 위 인사규정은 ‘구속으로 인해 현실적인 근로제공이 불가능한 경우’를 휴직사유로 정하고 있는 것으로 보이는데, 을이 형사사건으로 구속됨으로써 인사규정에서 정한 휴직사유가 발생하였고, 그로 인해 상당한 기간에 걸쳐 근로를 제공할 수 없었던 상황이었음이 인정되므로, 휴직명령에는 정당한 이유가 있었다고 볼 수 있으나, 을이 석방된 이후에는 휴직명령의 사유가 소멸하였으므로 다른 특별한 사정이 없는 한 갑 병원은 을의 복직신청에 대하여 지체 없이 복직을 명하였어야 하고, 을이 석방된 이후에도 보석이 취소되거나 실형이 선고되는 등으로 다시 근로를 제공할 수 없는 상황에 처하게 될 가능성이 있었다는 사정만으로 복직 거부 당시 을이 상당한 기간에 걸쳐 근로를 제공하는 것이 매우 부적당한 경우에 해당하였다고 단정하기도 어려운데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 2017년 4월분부터의 임금 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed with respect to the claim for wages from April 2017, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. The remaining final appeal is dismissed.
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