Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
An unjustly prolonged standby order void from the point it lost its purpose
Supreme Court, Sept. 12, 2024, 2024Da250873 (judgment)
Case name: 근로에관한소송[대기발령을 받은 근로자가 대기발령 사유가 없거나 대기발령이 부당히 장기간 유지되어 무효라고 주장한 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an employee under a standby order could have provided labour for a substantial period and providing it would not have been highly improper, from which point in time does maintaining that provisional status for an unjustly long time make the standby order void?
Holding
In principle, from the point at which maintaining the order becomes unjustly prolonged to a degree that lacks rationality by social standards. Where the order's main purpose was to stop the employee's interference with an audit and that purpose ended with the audit, the order is void from the point the need for it disappeared. But the voidness of the later improper maintenance does not by itself make the earlier portion void: the period before the audit ended, when the order could still have had a purpose, needs its own ground of invalidity examined separately.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 대기발령을 받은 근로자가 상당한 기간에 걸쳐 근로의 제공을 할 수 없다거나 근로제공을 함이 매우 부적당한 경우가 아닌데도 사회통념상 합리성이 없을 정도로 부당하게 장기간 동안 잠정적 지위의 상태로 유지하는 것은, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 정당한 이유가 있다고 보기 어려우므로 합리성이 없을 정도로 부당하다고 볼 만한 시점 이후부터의 대기발령은 무효라고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where an employee who has been placed on standby is not in a situation where the employee cannot render work for a considerable period of time or where the rendering of work would be highly inappropriate, but is nonetheless left in a provisional status for a long period of time so unreasonably as to lack rationality in light of socially accepted ideas, it is difficult, absent special circumstances, to regard there as being just cause, and therefore the order to stand by from the point of time at which it can be regarded as unreasonably lacking rationality must be held invalid.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
대기발령의 목적과 실제 기능, 유지의 합리성 여부 및 그로 인하여 근로자가 받게 될 신분상·경제상의 불이익 등 구체적인 사정을 모두 참작하여 그 기간은 합리적인 범위 내에서 이루어져야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The period must be within a reasonable range, taking into account all the specific circumstances, such as the purpose and actual function of the order to stand by, whether maintaining it is reasonable, and the disadvantages in status and in financial terms that the employee will suffer as a result.
Factors
- 대기발령의 목적과 실제 기능, 유지의 합리성 여부 및 그로 인하여 근로자가 받게 될 신분상·경제상의 불이익 등 구체적인 사정을 모두 참작하여 그 기간은 합리적인 범위 내에서 이루어져야 한다.
- 상당한 기간에 걸쳐 근로의 제공을 할 수 없다거나 근로제공을 함이 매우 부적당한 경우가 아닌데도
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한 정당한 이유가 있다고 보기 어려우므로
- 대기발령의 필요성이 없어진 시점부터는 대기발령이 부당하게 장기간 유지되는 것이어서 무효로 보아야 하지만
- 대기발령의 필요성이 있을 수 있는 감사 종료 이전 부분에 관하여는 무효 사유를 별도로 따져 봐야 하고
Unofficial English translation
• The period must be within a reasonable range, taking into account all the specific circumstances, such as the purpose and actual function of the order to stand by, whether maintaining it is reasonable, and the disadvantages in status and in financial terms that the employee will suffer as a result.
• Where an employee who has been placed on standby is not in a situation where the employee cannot render work for a considerable period of time or where the rendering of work would be highly inappropriate, but is nonetheless
• It is difficult, absent special circumstances, to regard there as being just cause, and therefore
• from the point of time at which the need for the order to stand by ceased to exist, the order to stand by was maintained for an unreasonably long period of time and therefore must be regarded as invalid, but
• with respect to the portion preceding the completion of the audit, when there could have been a need for the order to stand by, the grounds for invalidity must be examined separately, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2009다86246 판결(공2011하, 2316)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da86246 decided October 13, 2011 (Gong 2011 Ha, 2316)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2007. 2. 23. 선고 2005다3991 판결, 대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2009다86246 판결(공2011하, 2316), 대법원 2013. 5. 9. 선고 2012다64833 판결(공2013상, 1025)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What facts would supply a separate ground of invalidity against this employee for the portion of the standby order before the audit ended?
The remand judgment of the Busan High Court, once it fixes when the order became void and rules separately on the earlier portion, will show how this test works on these facts. A later decision treating that earlier portion differently, or an amendment to Article 23(1) of the Labour Standards Act, would call for 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 “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Neither reading finds an explicit allocation of the burden of proof in the holding, so both record it as not addressed and do not diverge on this axis.
대기발령의 필요성이 있을 수 있는 감사 종료 이전 부분에 관하여는 무효 사유를 별도로 따져 봐야 하고, 감사 종료 이후의 부당한 대기발령 유지 조치가 무효라는 이유만으로 그 이전 부분까지 당연히 무효가 된다고 볼 수는 없다고 한 사례.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 Busan High Court, in its judgment of 9 May 2024 (2023Na57244), left standing the first-instance judgment that held the standby order void in its entirety. It reasoned that the order's chief purpose was to stop the plaintiff's interference with the defendant's audit, that the need for it disappeared when the audit ended, and that keeping the plaintiff in a provisional status for an unjustly long time was therefore irrational. It also refused the defendant's argument that the order had to be maintained because an investigation into embezzlement of corporate funds was in progress.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court accepted the part holding the order void from the point the need for it disappeared, and found no misreading of the law on disciplinary measures and personnel orders that affected the outcome. But voidness runs only from that point: for the earlier period, when the audit was still running and the order could still have served its purpose, a separate ground of invalidity must be examined, and the improper maintenance after the audit does not make that earlier portion void as a matter of course. Because further hearing and judgment on when the order became void was needed, it reversed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the Busan High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the employee cannot provide labour for a substantial period, or providing it would be highly improper, since the rule protects a worker held in a provisional status without such a reason.
- A case where special circumstances supply a valid reason for keeping the employee in a provisional status, since voidness follows only where no such reason appears.
- A dispute confined to the period before the audit ended, since the Court held that the voidness of the later maintenance does not reach back to that earlier portion.
Record verification notes
Set out the dates of the audit, the end of the audit and each step keeping the employee in a provisional status, since the voidness runs from the moment the purpose was lost and does not reach back. For the earlier period, gather whatever could show a separate ground of invalidity, and weigh the purpose and actual function of the order, the reasonableness of maintaining it and the personal and economic disadvantage to the employee together. Then check whether Article 23(1) of the Labour Standards Act was applied to the version in force at each date relied on.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 대기발령을 받은 근로자가 상당한 기간에 걸쳐 근로의 제공을 할 수 없다거나 근로제공을 함이 매우 부적당한 경우가 아닌데도 사회통념상 합리성이 없을 정도로 부당하게 장기간 동안 잠정적 지위의 상태로 유지하는 경우, 합리성이 없을 정도로 부당하다고 볼 만한 시점 이후부터의 대기발령은 무효라고 보아야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [2] 갑 학교법인의 을에 대한 대기발령이 무효인지 문제 된 사안에서, 대기발령의 필요성이 없어진 시점부터는 대기발령이 부당하게 장기간 유지되는 것이어서 무효로 보아야 하지만, 부당한 대기발령 유지 조치가 무효라는 이유만으로 그 이전 부분까지 당연히 무효가 된다고 볼 수는 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where an employee who has been placed on standby is not in a situation where the employee cannot render work for a considerable period of time or where the rendering of work would be highly inappropriate, but is nonetheless left in a provisional status for a long period of time so unreasonably as to lack rationality in light of socially accepted ideas, the order to stand by from the point of time at which it can be regarded as unreasonably lacking rationality should be held invalid (affirmative in principle) [2] In a case where the question arose whether school corporation A's order placing B on standby was invalid, a case where it was held that, from the point of time at which the need for the order to stand by ceased to exist, the order to stand by was maintained for an unreasonably long period of time and therefore must be regarded as invalid, but the portion preceding that point cannot be regarded as automatically invalid merely because the measure of maintaining the unreasonable order to stand by is invalid
Summary of the holding
[1] ‘대기발령’은 근로자가 현재의 직위 또는 직무를 장래에 계속 담당하게 되면 업무상 장애 등이 예상되는 경우에 이를 예방하기 위하여 일시적으로 해당 근로자에게 직위를 부여하지 않음으로써 직무에 종사하지 못하도록 하는 잠정적인 조치를 의미한다. 이러한 대기발령을 포함한 인사명령은 원칙적으로 인사권자인 사용자의 고유권한에 속하므로 업무상 필요한 범위 안에서 사용자에게 상당한 재량을 인정하여야 한다. 그러나 대기발령과 같은 잠정적인 인사명령이 명령 당시에는 정당한 경우라고 하더라도, 대기발령의 목적과 실제 기능, 유지의 합리성 여부 및 그로 인하여 근로자가 받게 될 신분상·경제상의 불이익 등 구체적인 사정을 모두 참작하여 그 기간은 합리적인 범위 내에서 이루어져야 한다. 따라서 대기발령을 받은 근로자가 상당한 기간에 걸쳐 근로의 제공을 할 수 없다거나 근로제공을 함이 매우 부적당한 경우가 아닌데도 사회통념상 합리성이 없을 정도로 부당하게 장기간 동안 잠정적 지위의 상태로 유지하는 것은, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 정당한 이유가 있다고 보기 어려우므로 합리성이 없을 정도로 부당하다고 볼 만한 시점 이후부터의 대기발령은 무효라고 보아야 한다. [2] 갑 학교법인의 을에 대한 대기발령이 무효인지 문제 된 사안에서, 을의 감사 방해를 저지하기 위한 데 주된 목적이 있는 위 대기발령은 갑 법인의 감사가 종료됨으로써 그 필요성이 없어졌음에도 그대로 유지되고 있어 을을 사회통념상 합리성이 없을 정도로 부당하게 장기간 동안 잠정적 지위의 상태로 두는 것이 되어 부당하므로 대기발령이 무효라고 본 원심판단에 대하여 대기발령의 필요성이 없어진 시점부터는 대기발령이 부당하게 장기간 유지되는 것이어서 무효로 보아야 하지만, 대기발령의 필요성이 있을 수 있는 감사 종료 이전 부분에 관하여는 무효 사유를 별도로 따져 봐야 하고, 감사 종료 이후의 부당한 대기발령 유지 조치가 무효라는 이유만으로 그 이전 부분까지 당연히 무효가 된다고 볼 수는 없다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
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