JIPYONG LLC

Jipyong News|KOREA LEGAL INSIGHT

Annual Leave Application Procedures and the Employer’s Right to Change Leave Dates Under the New Administration

2025.09.15

Introduction
<div> 
The new administration has introduced reforms aimed at enhancing employees’ rights to annual leave.  Key proposals include: (i) reducing the eligibility period to six months of service; (ii) extending the carryover period for unused leave to three years; and (iii) prohibiting retaliation against employees who exercise their right to take leave.   
 
While these measures are intended to broaden statutory protections for employees, they may conflict with business operational needs.  Employees are often concerned about the timing and process for submitting leave requests to ensure they are not lawfully denied, whereas employers must manage workforce shortages, arrange for substitutes, and implement policies that minimize disputes.   
 
In this context, the Supreme Court has recently confirmed the legality of requiring employees to submit annual leave applications by a specified advance deadline.  </div>
 
 
1. Application Procedures and the Employer’s Right to Change Leave Dates 
 
A) Application Procedures

<div> 
Article 60(5) of the Labor Standards Act (LSA) provides that, in principle, annual leave should be granted at the time requested by the employee.  However, in practice, this right is often regulated through collective agreements or internal workplace policies, which may set submission deadlines or require compliance with specific application procedures—requirements that employees may not always meet.  </div>
 
B) Employer’s Right to Change Leave Dates

<div> 
The proviso to Article 60(5) LSA provides: “If granting leave at the time requested by the employee would cause significant disruption to business operations, the employer may change the leave dates.”  This provision embodies the principle that the employees’ rights to take leave must be balanced against the employer’s need to maintain regular business operations.  Courts have interpreted “significant disruption” narrowly, restricting it to situations where granting leave would materially impair productivity or cause serious business harm (Seoul High Court Decision 2018Nu57171, April 4, 2019).  Notably, operational difficulties arising solely from an employer’s failure to plan for foreseeable leave do not constitute “significant disruption” (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap73392, August 19, 2016).  </div>
 
 
2. Recent Supreme Court Decision

<div> 
In a recent case, a bus company’s collective agreement required employees to submit annual leave applications at least three days in advance.  When an employee requested leave on the same-day, the company denied the request and exercised its right to alter the timing of the leave.  </div>

<ul>
	<li>The Busan District Court (Aug. 19, 2021, 2021No891) held that the advance notice requirement was reasonable in light of the operational characteristics of the transport industry, and that the company’s refusal was lawful.  </li>
	<li>The Supreme Court (July 17, 2025, 2021Do11886) upheld this decision, stating that whether leave causes “significant disruption” must be determined through a comprehensive assessment of the following factors:  </li>
</ul>

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
	<tbody>
		<tr>
			<td style="width: 3%; text-align: justify;" valign="top"></td>
			<td style="text-align: center; vertical-align: top; font-size: 18px" width="5%">1)</td>
			<td style="font-size: 18px" width="95%">The nature and importance of the employee’s duties;  </td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width: 3%; text-align: justify;" valign="top"></td>
			<td style="text-align:center; vertical-align: top; font-size: 18px">2)</td>
			<td style="font-size: 18px">Expected staffing levels and workload during the requested leave period;  </td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width: 3%; text-align: justify;" valign="top"></td>
			<td style="text-align: center; vertical-align: top; font-size: 18px">3)</td>
			<td style="font-size: 18px">The timing of the leave request; and  </td>
		</tr>
		<tr>
			<td style="width: 3%; text-align: justify;" valign="top"></td>
			<td style="text-align: center; vertical-align: top; font-size: 18px">4)</td>
			<td style="font-size: 18px">The feasibility and time required to secure substitutes.  </td>
		</tr>
	</tbody>
</table>

<div> 
The Court emphasized that in industries where punctuality is essential—such as passenger bus transport—collective agreements mandating advance notice are valid.  If an employee fails to comply with such requirements without unavoidable justification, this may impede the employer’s ability to arrange substitutes and may be deemed a “significant disruption.”  In this case, the employee lacked an unavoidable reason for the late request, and no substitute drivers were available.  The Court therefore upheld the company’s refusal as lawful.  </div>
 
 
3. Significance and Implications

<div> 
The Supreme Court’s 1992 decision (92Da7542) had previously upheld similar advance approval requirements for leave in intercity bus sector.  The 2025 decision extends this principle to city bus operations, reinforcing the principle that in industries where punctuality and operational continuity are critical, employers may lawfully impose advance application requirements.  However, it is important to note that both cases involved the transport sector, where operational flexibility is limited.  This standard may not automatically apply to industries with less time-sensitive operations, where work can be resumed after an employee’s return, or where substitute staffing is more readily available.   
 
The Ministry of Employment and Labor has issued administrative guidance consistent with this approach (MOEL Interpretation, Jan. 6, 2022).  However, requiring employees to designate their own substitutes as a condition for leave approval has been deemed unlawful (MOEL Interpretation, Aug. 12, 2005).  Ultimately, the validity of advance application requirements depends on their reasonableness and their ability to balance employee’s statutory right to rest with the employer’s need for operational continuity.  </div>
 
 
4. Key Takeaway 
 
<div>Employers may lawfully incorporate advance notice requirements for annual leave into workplace rules or collective agreements, provided these requirements are reasonable and justified by legitimate business needs.  Korean courts have recognized the validity of such provisions when they appropriately balance employees’ statutory rights to rest with the employer’s duty to ensure smooth operations.  For foreign companies, advance notice deadlines can serve as effective compliance and risk-management tools, minimizing disputes over leave refusals. Ultimately, notice periods should be proportionate to operational realities and able to withstand judicial scrutiny.  </div>
 
<a href="https://www.jipyong.com/kr/board/news_view.php?seq=14374" target="_blank">[Link to Korean Newsletter]</a> 
 
<div style="line-height: 110%;"> 
 
<img alt="" height="220" src="https://www.jipyong.com/newsletter/kli/61_202501/img/board.png" usemap="#Map" width="820" /><map name="Map"><area coords="10,53,197,207" href="https://www.jipyong.com/en/member/member_view.php?seq=145" shape="rect" target="_blank" /> <area coords="209,53,402,209" href="https://www.jipyong.com/en/member/member_view.php?seq=689" shape="rect" target="_blank" /> <area coords="409,54,587,209" href="https://www.jipyong.com/en/member/member_view.php?seq=81" shape="rect" target="_blank" /> <area coords="593,54,767,208" href="https://www.jipyong.com/en/member/member_view.php?seq=41" shape="rect" target="_blank" /></map>

</div>

News Update Jipyong Represented Naver in a Case Involving the Abuse of Market Dominant Position Concerning its Search Algorithm, and Obtained a Supreme Court Decision to Quash and Remand the Lower Court’s Decision 2025.10.16

KOREA LEGAL INSIGHT Personal Obligations in Korean Venture Financing Deals: Enforceability of Founder-Backed Share Purchase Obligations in Korea 2025.09.29

Back to List

JIPYONG LLC

Related Practices

Professionals

Related Practices

Professionals

SHARE

Disclaimer

Limited Liabilities