1. The Concept & Types of Ordinary Dismissal

(1) Concept
Ordinary dismissal refers to termination of the employment contract due to the non-performance of the employee's obligation to provide labor service in accordance with the employment contract. Therefore, ordinary dismissal requires a reason attributable to the employee that the employee cannot provide work.
(footnote247 Hyungbae Jun, A study on the Justification of Ordinary Dismissal per Type, Seoul Labor Relations Commission, 2011, page 1.)
A reason attributable to the employee means that the employee falls into the remarkable condition where the employee becomes mentally or physically disqualified from providing the work which is the employee's main obligation according to the employment contract, and as a result, the employee cannot carry out his assigned work sufficiently in the workplace.
(footnote248 Jongryul Lim, 「Labor Law」, 13th edition, 2015, Parkyoung sa, page 353.)
That is, the term 'employment contract' in the Labor Standards Act means a contract which is entered into in order for a worker to offer work and for an employer to pay wages for that work (Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act). As the reason the employee cannot provide work according to the employment contract is attributable to the employee, the employer can terminate the employment contract on the grounds of the employee's severe violation of the employment contract. This is referred to as ordinary dismissal.

(2) Types of ordinary dismissal
In most cases, ordinary dismissal is a result of reasons attributable to the employee, but court rulings also place termination of an employment contract due to company bankruptcy or voluntary closure in the category of ordinary dismissal.
(A) Dismissal due to reasons attributable to the employee
1) In cases where the employee is not qualified for work, or lacks the necessary vocational skills
① In cases where the employee is unable to obtain a qualification certificate essential for work, or failed an examination required for appropriate work performance, or he is lacking the necessary professional knowledge or skills, this may be grounds for ordinary dismissal.
(footnote249 Supreme Court ruling on July 25, 1989, 88DaKa25595.)

② If the employee's work performance has been evaluated as very poor, the employer cannot dismiss the employee for that reason only. However, in cases where the employee's work ability has been evaluated remarkably deficient in objective reviews, a dismissal may be determined as attributable to the employee.
(footnote250 Seoul Civil Court ruling on Apr. 12, 1990, 89Gahap33263.)
③ In cases where the employee has a severe handicap after completing medical treatment for an occupational injury, if the employee cannot carry out or completes his previous assignments very poorly, the employer may be justified in dismissing the employee.
(footnote251 Supreme Court ruling on Nov. 12, 1996, 95Nu15728.)
2) In cases where the employee is sick with an illness that makes it unreasonably difficult to provide work.
① In cases where a driver has become blind, or in cases where a cook has contracted an incurable infectious disease, dismissal is regarded as attributable to the employee.
(footnote252 Supreme Court ruling on Dec. 6, 1996, 95Da45934.)
② In cases where the employee was injured due to actions unrelated to work, and cannot work as normal for a considerable time even after taking leave of absence twice, dismissal may be justifiable.
(footnote253 Administrative Court ruling on Mar. 3, 2006, 2005Guhap14158.)
3) In cases where potential exists for a company's secrets to be leaked
In cases where an employee is in a position to know a company's business secrets and has a close relationship, through marriage, with a competitor's management, or the employee has a close relative or friendly relationship with a competitor company's directors, dismissal may be acceptable to prevent the leakage of business secrets.
(footnote254 Constitution Court decision on Mar. 31, 2005, 2003Hunba12; Hyungbae Kim & Jisoon Park, the above book, page 317.)
(B) Dismissal due to reasons attributable to the employer
① In cases where a bankruptcy administrator dismisses all employees after the declaration of bankruptcy, this dismissal is not managerial dismissal, but ordinary dismissal, and so the company does not need to follow the requirements in the Labor Standards Act as to the process for dismissal for managerial reasons.
(footnote255 Supreme Court ruling on Feb. 27, 2004, 2003Du902.)
② In cases where the employer has made every effort to resolve financial problems, and has concluded that closing the business is the most reasonable method, and closed the business and dismissed the employees, these dismissals are justifiable.
(footnote256 Administrative Court ruling on Apr. 18, 2006, 2005Guhap34015.)
③ In cases where the employer has dismissed an employee because the work that was supposed to be carried out is no longer needed, this dismissal is not for managerial reasons, but is ordinary dismissal.
(footnote257 Supreme Court ruling on Oct. 29, 1996, 96Da22198.)
④ In cases where an employee was hired to work at a specific workplace, and the company's license to use the specific workplace has expired, dismissal of that employee may be justifiable.
(footnote258 Administrative Court ruling on July 19, 2005, 2004Guhap39723.)


2. Reasons Necessary for Ordinary Dismissal

(1) Ease of dismissal
In cases where the employee neglects his primary duty in the employment contract to provide work, or carries out his assigned duties insufficiently, the employer can notify the employee of termination of his employment contract. This ordinary dismissal serves to increase the number of reasons for terminating the employment contract and make flexibility in manpower management possible.
There are three types of dismissal: ordinary dismissal, disciplinary dismissal, and managerial dismissal. Here, disciplinary dismissal and managerial dismissal have strict requirements and procedures that must be followed for the dismissal to be determined justifiable.
Disciplinary dismissal requires the employer to follow the disciplinary procedures stipulated in the Collective Agreement or the Rules of Employment. If the employer does not do so, the dismissal becomes unfair even though the reason was serious enough to justify dismissal. In one case, the courts ruled, The Collective Agreement, the Rules of Employment, and its related rules regulated that the employer should hold a disciplinary committee that includes a Labor Union representative, and provide the employee concerned the opportunity to attend the disciplinary action meeting where he/she may explain his opinions and submit any defending documents. However, if the employer dismissed the employee concerned in violation of the disciplinary procedures, this dismissal is unfair and invalid regardless of any justifiable reason for dismissal.
(footnote259 Supreme Court ruling on July 9, 1991, 90Da8087.)
Managerial dismissal requires very strict conditions and the employer to comply with procedures according to dismissals for managerial reasons in Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act to be determined justifiable in accordance with Article 23 (1) of the same Act. These conditions and procedures for managerial dismissal are: 1) there must be an urgent necessity in relation to the business; 2) the employer shall make every effort to avoid dismissal; 3) the employer shall follow reasonable and fair criteria for the selection of those persons subject to dismissal; and 4) the employer shall inform and consult in good faith with the labor union (where there is no such organized labo