Corporation A transferred Mr. B, who was suspended for three months for sexual harassment at work while working as a team leader, to a general working-level position. Afterward, Mr. B, who was working as working-level staff, was reassigned to the position of branch manager, an executive position, by the previous chairman, Mr. K. After the dismissal of the above-mentioned chairman, the newly-appointed chairman Mr. L dismissed Mr. B from the executive position and transferred him to a general working-level position again based on the personnel regulations (hereinafter, the above dismissal and the above transfer are collectively referred to as the "personnel order in this case").

Mr. B applied to the Labor Commission for relief against the personnel order in this case. The Seoul Regional Labor Commission dismissed the application for relief, finding that the personnel order in this case was justified. The Central Labor Commission, however, revoked the initial decision and granted the application for reconsideration (the "reconsideration decision in this case"), finding that the personnel order in this case was unjustified because there was no business necessity and disadvantages in life that would be given to the applicant due to the personnel order in this case would be significant.

Corporation A file a suit to seek the cancellation of the reconsideration decision in this case.

On January 26, 2024, the 11^th Division of the Seoul Administration Court ruled that the personnel order in this case was justified because, even if the business necessity was weighed against the disadvantage in life, the business necessity was greater than the disadvantage in life, and issued a judgment canceling the reconsideration decision in this case.

We argued that the personnel order in this case was based on Corporation A’s personnel regulations, which stipulated that executives may not be given executive positions in consideration of disciplinary action, and that the guidelines for the management of public companies and quasi-intelligence organizations also require measures such as restricting the perpetrator from holding a position. In addition, we argued the legitimacy of the personnel order in this case from various perspectives, such as the fact that Mr. B, who committed power-type sexual harassment against a subordinate, would jeopardize organizational discipline if he remained in his position as an executive in a public institution, which requires high morality and integrity, and that the level of reduction in his job allowance was not beyond the level of disadvantage that one could normally bear. The tribunal accepted all of these arguments.

In a recent Supreme Court ruling, 2020Da253744, dated July 13, 2023, the court said that whether a transfer order is justified should be determined by comprehensively considering whether the order is made on the basis of consideration of business necessity and disadvantages in life, and whether the procedures required by the principle of good faith have been followed. As a result, the previous Supreme Court precedents that a transfer order cannot be considered invalid unless there are special circumstances such as violation of the Labor Standards Act or abuse of rights are interpreted as abolished. This case, which was decided after the Supreme Court’s decision numbered 2020Da253744 had been entered, is expected to serve as a precedent that can be used as a reference for judging the validity of transfer orders on the basis of the changed Supreme Court precedent, the legitimacy of removing an executive position for a person who committed sexual harassment in the workplace in the past, and the legitimacy of issuing a personnel order to remove an executive position for a person who was granted an executive position due to a change in personnel authority.



​□ Attorneys in charge: Kim Kyeong-yeon, Cho Yoon-ji