Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Retrospective effect of an unconstitutionality ruling on a dismissal-notice exemption
Supreme Court, Feb. 11, 2022, 2020Do68 (judgment)
Case name: 근로기준법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does an unconstitutionality ruling by the Constitutional Court on Article 35(iii) of the former Labour Standards Act have retrospective effect under Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, and is the scope of Article 26(i) of the Labour Standards Act as amended by Act No. 16270 of 15 January 2019 limited to workers who concluded an employment contract after that date?
Holding
It does not. Although Article 35(iii) of the former Act, taken with Article 110(i) which made its breach the element of the offence, forms a provision concerning punishment, it only excluded the elements of the offence under Articles 26 and 110(i); giving it retrospective effect would instead make criminally liable those who had escaped punishment, so legal stability and the employers' protected reliance would suffer and the purpose of Article 47(3) would be defeated. The provision therefore lost force from the day of the ruling, 23 December 2015, and from that date an employer must give a monthly-paid worker 30 days' advance notice of dismissal or pay 30 days' ordinary wages in dismissal-notice allowance, whatever the length of service, subject to Article 110(i) of the same Act. The scope of Article 26(i) of the amended Act is limited to workers who concluded an employment contract after its entry into force, 15 January 2019.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
구 근로기준법 제35조 제3호에 대한 위헌결정에는 헌법재판소법 제47조 제3항에 따른 소급효가 인정되지 아니하고, 위 조항은 같은 법 제47조 제2항에 따라 위헌결정이 있는 날부터 효력을 상실한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Retroactive effect under Article 47 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Act is not recognized for the decision of unconstitutionality rendered with respect to Article 35 subparagraph 3 of the former Labor Standards Act, and the above provision must be regarded as having lost its effect from the date of the decision of unconstitutionality pursuant to Article 47 paragraph (2) of the same Act.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분과 공소외인에 대한 해고예고수당 미지급으로 인한 근로기준법 위반에 관한 무죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below, insofar as it found the defendant guilty and insofar as it found the defendant not guilty of the violation of the Labor Standards Act arising from non-payment of the allowance in lieu of notice of dismissal to the Non-indicted person, is reversed, and the case in that part is remanded to the Daejeon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
구 근로기준법 제35조 제3호에 대한 위헌결정에는 헌법재판소법 제47조 제3항에 따른 소급효가 인정되지 아니하고, 위 조항은 같은 법 제47조 제2항에 따라 위헌결정이 있는 날부터 효력을 상실한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Retroactive effect under Article 47 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Act is not recognized for the decision of unconstitutionality rendered with respect to Article 35 subparagraph 3 of the former Labor Standards Act, and the above provision must be regarded as having lost its effect from the date of the decision of unconstitutionality pursuant to Article 47 paragraph (2) of the same Act.
Factors
- 위 조항을 위반할 것을 구성요건으로 규정하고 있는 같은 법 제110조 제1호와 결합하여 형벌에 관한 법률 조항을 이루게 된다
- 그러나 위 조항은 같은 법 제26조 본문 및 제110조 제1호에 규정된 근로기준법 위반죄의 구성요건해당성 배제 사유를 규정한 것이기 때문에
- 법적 안정성과 이미 불처벌 대상이었던 사용자의 신뢰보호의 이익까지 크게 해치게 되어 그 규정 취지에 반한다
- 구 근로기준법 제35조 제3호는 위헌결정일인 2015. 12. 23.부터 효력을 상실하여
- 개정 근로기준법 제26조 제1호는 위 조항의 시행일 이후 근로계약을 체결한 근로자부터 적용한다고 규정하였다
Unofficial English translation
• it, in combination with Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, which stipulates as a constituent element the violation of the above provision, constitutes a penal provision
• However, since the above provision stipulates grounds for excluding the applicability of the constituent elements of the crime of violating the Labor Standards Act prescribed in the main sentence of Article 26 and Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the same Act,
• it would seriously impair legal stability and the interest in protecting the reliance of employers who were already beyond the reach of punishment, thereby contravening the purpose of the provision
• Article 35 subparagraph 3 of the former Labor Standards Act lost its effect from December 23, 2015, the date of the decision of unconstitutionality,
• Article 26 subparagraph 1 of the amended Labor Standards Act provides that it shall apply beginning with employees who entered into employment contracts after the effective date of the above provision
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 5. 28. 선고 2017도8610 판결(공2020하, 1288)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do8610 decided May 28, 2020 (Gong 2020 Ha, 1288)
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 헌법재판소 2015. 12. 23. 선고 2014헌바3 전원재판부 결정(헌공231, 127) / [1] 대법원 2020. 5. 28. 선고 2017도8610 판결(공2020하, 1288), 헌법재판소 1997. 1. 16. 선고 90헌마110, 136 전원재판부 결정(헌공20, 229)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Do the other exemption reasons in the proviso of amended Article 26, besides item (i), also apply only to workers who concluded an employment contract after 15 January 2019?
A later decision applying Article 2 of the supplementary provisions to the other exemption reasons in the proviso of Article 26, or an amendment to Article 26 and its supplementary provisions, would require this entry to be read again. A record showing a contract date or a dismissal date on the other side of 23 December 2015 or 15 January 2019 would also call for a fresh reading.
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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Do the other exemption reasons in the proviso of amended Article 26, besides item (i), also apply only to workers who concluded an employment contract after 15 January 2019?” vs Independent “Does renewing an employment contract after January 15, 2019, bring a worker first hired before that date within the revised exemption?”
The primary reading asks whether other exemption reasons in the amended proviso are also limited to post-2019 contracts, while the independent reading asks whether renewing a contract after 2019 brings a pre-2019 hire within the new exemption.
구 근로기준법 제35조 제3호에 대한 위헌결정에는 헌법재판소법 제47조 제3항에 따른 소급효가 인정되지 아니하고, 위 조항은 같은 법 제47조 제2항에 따라 위헌결정이 있는 날부터 효력을 상실한다고 보아야 한다.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 Daejeon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 11 December 2019 (2018No1426), reversed the first-instance conviction and acquitted the defendant on the charge of failing to pay dismissal-notice allowance. It reasoned that the dismissed worker, A, had rendered continuous service for less than three months, so that under Article 26(i) of the amended Labour Standards Act A was not a worker entitled to advance notice of dismissal.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal occurred in May 2017, after the Constitutional Court's ruling of 23 December 2015, so Article 35(iii) of the former Act could not be applied to this charge; and that A had concluded the employment contract with the defendant before 15 January 2019, so that under Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of the amendment A also fell outside Article 26(i). The court below misapprehended the scope of application of amended Article 26(i) and the exemption from the notice duty, an error that affected the judgment, so the acquittal was reversed; because that charge stood in concurrence of offences with the conviction part under Article 37 first clause of the Criminal Act and a single sentence had to be imposed on the whole, the conviction part was reversed as well and the case was remanded to the Daejeon District Court. The defendant's own appeal was not upheld, since under Article 383(iv) of the Criminal Procedure Act a sentence lighter than life or ten years or more had been imposed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A dismissal of a monthly-paid worker that took place before 23 December 2015, since Article 35(iii) of the former Act was still in force on that date.
- A monthly-paid worker who concluded an employment contract on or after 15 January 2019 and rendered service for less than three months, since the amended Article 26(i) exempts that worker from the notice duty.
- A charge resting on grounds other than the failure to give notice or pay dismissal-notice allowance, since the holding turns on the exemption from that duty.
Record verification notes
Fix three dates from the file: the date the employment contract was concluded, the date of dismissal, and 23 December 2015, the day the Constitutional Court ruled. Then confirm the worker was paid monthly and whether the charge was brought under Article 26 first clause with Article 110(i) of the former Act, and check whether the reversed part stands in concurrence with other offences, as it did here, since that widens the scope of the reversal.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 근로기준법 제35조 제3호에 대한 헌법재판소 위헌결정에 헌법재판소법 제47조 제3항에 따른 소급효가 인정되는지 여부(소극) / 구 근로기준법 제35조 제3호는 위헌결정일인 2015. 12. 23.부터 효력을 상실하여 사용자는 월급근로자의 근무기간에 관계없이 같은 법 제26조 본문에 따라 근로자에게 30일 전에 해고의 예고를 하거나 30일분의 통상임금에 해당하는 해고예고수당을 지급할 의무를 부담하고 이를 위반하면 같은 법 제110조 제1호에 따라 형사처벌의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극) [2] 2019. 1. 15. 법률 제16270호로 개정된 근로기준법 제26조 제1호의 적용 범위가 위 조항의 시행일인 2019. 1. 15. 이후 근로계약을 체결한 근로자로 한정되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether retroactive effect under Article 47 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Act is recognized for the decision of unconstitutionality rendered by the Constitutional Court with respect to Article 35 subparagraph 3 of the former Labor Standards Act (negative) / Whether Article 35 subparagraph 3 of the former Labor Standards Act lost its effect from December 23, 2015, the date of the decision of unconstitutionality, so that an employer bears the obligation to give an employee 30 days' prior notice of dismissal or to pay an allowance in lieu of notice of dismissal equivalent to 30 days' ordinary wages pursuant to the main sentence of Article 26 of the same Act, irrespective of the period of service of a monthly paid employee, and whether a violation thereof is subject to criminal punishment pursuant to Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the same Act (affirmative) [2] Whether the scope of application of Article 26 subparagraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act amended by Act No. 16270 on January 15, 2019 is limited to employees who entered into employment contracts after January 15, 2019, the effective date of the above provision (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 헌법재판소는 2015. 12. 23. 구 근로기준법(2019. 1. 15. 법률 제16270호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제35조 제3호가 근무기간이 6개월 미만인 월급근로자의 근로의 권리를 침해하고, 평등원칙에도 위배된다는 이유로 위 조항이 헌법에 위반된다는 결정을 하였다. 위헌결정이 선고된 구 근로기준법 제35조 제3호 그 자체는 형사처벌 조항에 해당하지 않지만, 위 조항을 위반할 것을 구성요건으로 규정하고 있는 같은 법 제110조 제1호와 결합하여 형벌에 관한 법률 조항을 이루게 된다. 그러나 위 조항은 같은 법 제26조 본문 및 제110조 제1호에 규정된 근로기준법 위반죄의 구성요건해당성 배제 사유를 규정한 것이기 때문에, 위 조항에 대한 위헌결정의 소급효를 인정할 경우 오히려 그 조항이 적용되어 형사처벌을 받지 않았던 사람들에게 형사상 불이익이 미치게 되므로 이와 같은 경우까지 헌법재판소법 제47조 제3항의 적용 범위에 포함시키는 것은 법적 안정성과 이미 불처벌 대상이었던 사용자의 신뢰보호의 이익까지 크게 해치게 되어 그 규정 취지에 반한다. 따라서 구 근로기준법 제35조 제3호에 대한 위헌결정에는 헌법재판소법 제47조 제3항에 따른 소급효가 인정되지 아니하고, 위 조항은 같은 법 제47조 제2항에 따라 위헌결정이 있는 날부터 효력을 상실한다고 보아야 한다. 위 법리에 따르면, 구 근로기준법 제35조 제3호는 위헌결정일인 2015. 12. 23.부터 효력을 상실하여 사용자는 월급근로자의 근무기간에 관계없이 구 근로기준법 제26조 본문에 따라 근로자에게 30일 전에 해고의 예고를 하거나 30일분의 통상임금에 해당하는 해고예고수당을 지급할 의무를 부담하고, 위 규정을 위반한 자는 같은 법 제110조 제1호에 따라 형사처벌의 대상이 된다. [2] 근로기준법이 2019. 1. 15. 법률 제16270호로 개정되어(이하 ‘개정 근로기준법’이라 한다), 제35조를 삭제하고 해고예고의 적용 예외 사유를 제26조 단서에서 규정하며 그 예외 사유 중 하나로 제1호에 "근로자가 계속 근로한 기간이 3개월 미만인 경우"를 두었다. 개정 근로기준법 부칙은 위 규정의 시행 및 적용 범위에 관하여, 개정 근로기준법 제26조 및 제35조는 공포한 날부터 시행하되(제1조), 개정 근로기준법 제26조 제1호는 위 조항의 시행일 이후 근로계약을 체결한 근로자부터 적용한다고 규정하였다(제2조). 위 개정은 헌법재판소의 구 근로기준법(2019. 1. 15. 법률 제16270호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제35조 제3호에 대한 위헌결정의 취지를 반영하면서 구 근로기준법 제35조에서 규정하고 있었던 해고예고에 대한 적용 예외 사유들을 ‘계속 근로한 기간이 3개월 미만인 경우’로 일원화하여 체계적으로 정비한 것이다. 따라서 개정 근로기준법 제26조 제1호의 적용 범위는 위 개정 조항의 시행일인 2019. 1. 15. 이후 근로계약을 체결한 근로자로 한정된다.
Order
원심판결 중 유죄 부분과 공소외인에 대한 해고예고수당 미지급으로 인한 근로기준법 위반에 관한 무죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below, insofar as it found the defendant guilty and insofar as it found the defendant not guilty of the violation of the Labor Standards Act arising from non-payment of the allowance in lieu of notice of dismissal to the Non-indicted person, is reversed, and the case in that part is remanded to the Daejeon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 근로기준법(2019. 1. 15. 법률 제16270호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제26조, 제35조 제3호(현행 삭제), 제110조 제1호, 헌법재판소법 제47조 제2항, 제3항 [2] 구 근로기준법(2019. 1. 15. 법률 제16270호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제26조, 제35조 제3호(현행 삭제), 제110조 제1호, 구 근로기준법(2021. 1. 5. 법률 제17862호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제110조 제1호, 근로기준법 제26조 제1호, 부칙(2019. 1. 15. 법률 제16270호) 제1조, 제2조
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