Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Remedy order for non-renewal and the offence of violating it
Supreme Court, June 5, 2026, 2024Do17987 (judgment)
Case name: 노동조합및노동관계조정법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a labour commission orders reinstatement in the original position because an employer's refusal to renew a labour contract or service contract near expiry was an unfair labour practice, can the offence of violating Article 89(ii) of the Labour Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act still be established after the original contract period has expired?
Holding
Yes. The offence of violating a remedy order arises only on the premise that the employer can perform it, and the remedy order must be clear enough for the employer to recognise its content, because it is the basis of the punishment. An order to reinstate in the original position for a refusal to renew near the end of the contract period plainly presupposes that the refusal is itself ineffective, so reinstatement may be ordered after the period has ended; the employer can therefore perform it, and the offence may be established even though the original contract period has run out.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
근로계약 또는 노무제공계약의 기간이 만료될 무렵에 한 사용자의 계약 갱신 거절이 부당노동행위에 해당한다는 이유로 노동위원회가 원직 복직을 명하는 구제명령을 한 경우, 그러한 구제명령은 사용자의 갱신 거절 자체가 효력이 없음을 전제로 하여 당초의 계약 기간 만료 후라도 원직 복직을 명하는 내용임이 명확하다. 따라서 이때에는 당초의 계약 기간이 만료되었더라도 사용자가 구제명령을 이행하는 것이 가능하고, 구제명령 위반죄도 성립할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the Labor Commission has issued a remedial order directing reinstatement to the former position on the ground that an employer's refusal to renew the contract, made around the time the term of the labor contract or the contract for the provision of labor services expired, constitutes an unfair labor practice, it is clear that such remedial order, premised on the fact that the employer's refusal to renew is itself void, directs reinstatement to the former position even after the expiration of the original term of the contract. Accordingly, in such a case, even if the original term of the contract has expired, it is possible for the employer to comply with the remedial order, and the crime of violating the remedial order may also be established.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
구제명령을 이행하는 것이 가능함을 전제로 사용자가 확정된 구제명령을 위반한 때에 성립한다.
Unofficial English translation
It is established when the employer violates a finalized remedial order, on the premise that it is possible to comply with the remedial order.
Factors
- 구제명령을 이행하는 것이 가능함을 전제로
- 구제명령은 처벌의 전제가 되므로, 상대방인 사용자가 인식할 수 있을 정도로 그 내용이 명확하여야 한다
- 사용자의 갱신 거절 자체가 효력이 없음을 전제로 하여
- 당초의 계약 기간 만료 후라도 원직 복직을 명하는 내용임이 명확하다
Unofficial English translation
• on the premise that it is possible to comply with the remedial order
• as the remedial order serves as a prerequisite for punishment, its contents must be clear enough for the opposing party, the employer, to recognize them
• on the premise that the employer's refusal to renew is itself void
• it is clear that it directs reinstatement to the former position even after the expiration of the original term of the contract
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2026. 4. 30. 선고 2023도8049 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2023Do8049 decided April 30, 2026
Decisions referred to
대법원 2026. 4. 30. 선고 2023도8049 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What record and criteria decide whether a remedy order to reinstate after the contract period has ended is clear enough for the employer to recognise its content?
A later judgment of the Supreme Court that states the clarity requirement for remedy orders in different terms would require this entry to be read again, as would a development following the decision of 30 April 2026 (2023Do8049). Any amendment to Article 89(ii) of the Labour Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act, or a labour commission order whose wording on reinstatement after expiry is genuinely ambiguous, would call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 “What record and criteria decide whether a remedy order to reinstate after the contract period has ended is clear enough for the employer to recognise its content?” vs Independent “What circumstances other than expiry of the original contract term would make compliance with a reinstatement order impossible?”
The primary asks how to assess the order's clarity, while the independent asks what circumstances other than expiry make compliance impossible.
근로계약 또는 노무제공계약의 기간이 만료될 무렵에 한 사용자의 계약 갱신 거절이 부당노동행위에 해당한다는 이유로 노동위원회가 원직 복직을 명하는 구제명령을 한 경우, 그러한 구제명령은 사용자의 갱신 거절 자체가 효력이 없음을 전제로 하여 당초의 계약 기간 만료 후라도 원직 복직을 명하는 내용임이 명확하다. 따라서 이때에는 당초의 계약 기간이 만료되었더라도 사용자가 구제명령을 이행하는 것이 가능하고, 구제명령 위반죄도 성립할 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 Daegu District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 24 October 2024 (2023No4268), kept the first-instance judgment that had found the charged facts proved, for the reasons set out in that judgment. The Supreme Court's text does not reproduce those reasons.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Measured against the stated rule and the evidence lawfully admitted, the court below had not breached the rules of logic and experience, had not gone beyond the limits of free evaluation of evidence, and had not misapprehended the elements of the offence or the law on intent in a way affecting the judgment. It dismissed the appeal on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A remedy order whose content the employer cannot recognise as one ordering reinstatement even after the contract period has ended, since punishment presupposes an order clear enough to be perceived.
- A case in which performing the remedy order is impossible, since the offence arises only on the premise that performance is possible.
- A remedy order that does not rest on the renewal refusal itself being ineffective, so that it does not order reinstatement after the original contract period has ended.
Record verification notes
Confirm from the labour commission record that the remedy order was final and that its wording told the employer to reinstate even after the contract period had ended, since the Court's holding turns on the order being clear to that extent. Set the employer's conduct, including what it knew and intended after receiving the order, against the offence's intent element, which the Court reviewed. Read this entry with Supreme Court Decision 2023Do8049 of 30 April 2026, which the Court cited for the rule.
From the official text
Points at issue
노동조합 및 노동관계 조정법 제89조 제2호 위반죄의 성립 요건 및 근로계약 또는 노무제공계약의 기간이 만료될 무렵에 한 사용자의 계약 갱신 거절이 부당노동행위에 해당한다는 이유로 노동위원회가 원직 복직을 명하는 구제명령을 한 경우, 당초의 계약 기간이 만료되었더라도 노동조합 및 노동관계 조정법 제89조 제2호 위반죄가 성립할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the crime of violating Article 89, subparagraph 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act may be established even after the original term of the labor contract or the contract for the provision of labor services has expired, where the Labor Commission has issued a remedial order directing reinstatement to the former position on the ground that an employer's refusal to renew the contract, made around the time the term of the labor contract or the contract for the provision of labor services expired, constitutes an unfair labor practice (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
노동조합 및 노동관계 조정법(이하 ‘노동조합법’이라 한다) 제89조 제2호 위반죄(이하 ‘구제명령 위반죄’라 한다)는 구제명령을 이행하는 것이 가능함을 전제로 사용자가 확정된 구제명령을 위반한 때에 성립한다. 구제명령은 처벌의 전제가 되므로, 상대방인 사용자가 인식할 수 있을 정도로 그 내용이 명확하여야 한다. 근로계약 또는 노무제공계약의 기간이 만료될 무렵에 한 사용자의 계약 갱신 거절이 부당노동행위에 해당한다는 이유로 노동위원회가 원직 복직을 명하는 구제명령을 한 경우, 그러한 구제명령은 사용자의 갱신 거절 자체가 효력이 없음을 전제로 하여 당초의 계약 기간 만료 후라도 원직 복직을 명하는 내용임이 명확하다. 따라서 이때에는 당초의 계약 기간이 만료되었더라도 사용자가 구제명령을 이행하는 것이 가능하고, 구제명령 위반죄도 성립할 수 있다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
노동조합 및 노동관계 조정법 제89조 제2호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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