🔹 Case Overview

A public corporation moved employee B from Paju to Naju after he was accused of workplace bullying by five colleagues.

B challenged the transfer as unfair.

Both the Gyeonggi Labor Commission and the Central Labor Commission ruled in his favor.

The employer filed an administrative lawsuit seeking to overturn the labor commission’s decision.

The Seoul Administrative Court rejected the employer’s claim, confirming that the transfer was unlawful.



—

🔹 Key Facts

B worked at the Paju branch’s customer support department.

After receiving workplace-bullying complaints, the company separated B from the accusers and transferred him to Naju.

B claimed the transfer was excessive and lacked proper justification.

Labor commissions concluded:

Insufficient business necessity

Severe personal/life hardship caused by the transfer

Lack of required prior consultation procedures




—

🔹 Court’s Judgment

The court agreed with the labor commissions and found the transfer unlawful based on the following:

1. Separation ≠ automatic need for long-distance transfer

The court acknowledged the need to separate B from the complainants.

However, it ruled that separation did not require a remote relocation.


2. Many local alternatives existed

The company had 13 branches or sites in the Seoul metropolitan area, including Paju.

Transferring B to Naju went beyond internal “remote-worksite” standards.

It raised suspicion that the company may have been trying to send an undesirable employee far away.


3. Excessive personal and financial hardship

B would incur more than 1 million KRW per month in housing, transportation, and related expenses.

The court held that the hardship “exceeded what the employee should be expected to endure” relative to the business need.



—

🔹 Outcome

The employer’s lawsuit was dismissed.

The Central Labor Commission’s decision recognizing the transfer as unfair remains in force.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/213152