Rulings on forming a labor union, employment contract terms and trainee recruitment · 5 cases
This is an AI summary of the points published by the court, put in plain language. Always check the original for the exact content and conclusion of the ruling. It is not legal advice and cannot be applied as-is to other cases.
Three representative rulings
Court upholds corrective order and fine in foreign trainee training fee case — The court held that a corrective order and fine imposed on an executive of a vocational training corporation were justified. The reason given was that training fees were collected in advance from foreign worker trainees but the training course was not carried out.
A corrective order and a fine were imposed on an executive of a vocational competency development training corporation. The reason was that training fees were collected in advance from foreign worker trainees, but the training course was not carried out. Another reason was that, when recruiting trainees, false or exaggerated advertising was made about matters such as the period of stay. A lawsuit was filed seeking to cancel these measures.
What did the court decide?
The court held that the corrective order and the fine imposed on the executive of the vocational competency development training corporation were justified.
Two foreigners who taught English and handled related administrative work at a corporation kept working under 1-year employment contracts that were renewed. Renewal was then refused and their employment was ended. They sued, claiming they had become employees without a fixed term, so the termination was unfair dismissal. They also claimed unpaid wages and unpaid holiday bonuses.
What did the court decide?
The court held that the maximum period of stay under the Immigration Act is for managing foreigners' stay, not a limit on the employment period. Therefore the two were deemed employees who concluded employment contracts without a fixed term under the Fixed-Term Act, and termination based on expiry of the contract period was void as unfair dismissal. The company was found obliged to pay an amount equivalent to wages until the date of reinstatement. For holiday bonuses, the court held that the company's rules of employment and pay regulations apply to the period after they were deemed employees without a fixed term.
A lawsuit was filed seeking to cancel a decision that did not allow a change of workplace. The case involved a foreign worker who was hired with an employment permit for foreign workers. The employment contract had been renewed, but the issue was whether approval to extend the employment permit period had been obtained.
What did the court decide?
The court held that even if the employment contract was renewed, if approval to extend the employment permit period was not obtained, the employment contract ended when the date of the original employment permit passed.
The case concerned a situation where an employer obtained an employment permit for foreign workers, hired a foreign worker, and then renewed the employment contract. A lawsuit was filed to cancel a decision refusing to permit a change of workplace.
What did the court decide?
The court held that even if the employment contract was renewed, without an extension permit for the employment permit period, the employment contract ended once the date of the original employment permit passed.
A labor union whose main members are undocumented foreigners submitted a labor union establishment report. The head of the regional labor office, who made the decision, said the union had not provided the missing names of each workplace, the number of members, the representative's name and the member list. The head also said the union could not be regarded as a labor union because its main members were undocumented foreigners, and sent the report back. The union filed a lawsuit asking the court to cancel this decision.
What did the court decide?
The court ruled in favor of the union and cancelled the rejection. It said the rule requiring names of each workplace and similar items cannot be seen as a rule for checking whether the ban on multiple unions organizing workers of the same occupation in the same workplace is violated. It said undocumented foreigners who actually work in Korea and live on wages and the like are workers who can form a labor union. It also said that demanding the member list to check residence status, without a basis in law, was unlawful.
What do the Employment & Labor Unions rulings cover?
This collects 5 rulings on Rulings on forming a labor union, employment contract terms and trainee recruitment. Each case is laid out as what happened, then how the court ruled.
Can I apply a ruling directly to my own case?
No. A ruling decides the facts of that one case, so the outcome can differ for another case. For your own situation, check with an official body such as the immigration office with jurisdiction.
Where can I read the original ruling?
Each case has a “view original” link to the public post on the Supreme Court of Korea website. KoreaMoa does not reproduce full rulings; it only provides summaries.
