1. Dispute related to sexual harassment by male superior

(1) Summary of the case
R Motor Company’s female manager A filed a civil lawsuit in June 2013. Allegedly, she had suffered from sexual harassment by her superior, B, and had been subjected to unfavorable treatment by R Company and the employers when she reported it. In June 2014, she also filed a criminal complaint against R Company and the employers for violation of Article 14(2) of the Equal Employment Act, which prohibits disadvantaging alleged victims. In total, the civil lawsuit went through five trials: the court of first instance (Seoul Central District Court, ruling on Dec. 18, 2014, 2013GaHap536064, Damages Claim (Base)), court of second instance (Seoul High Court, ruling on Dec. 18, 2015, 2015Na2003264, Damages Claim (Base)), the Supreme Court (Supreme Court, ruling on Dec. 22, 2017, 2016Da202947, Damages Claim (Base)), the Seoul High Court, where the case was remanded and returned for a new trial (Seoul High Court, ruling on April 20, 2018, 2017Na2076631, Damages Claim (Base)), and finally the Supreme Court, where it went through a retrial (Supreme Court ruling on July 23, 2018, 2018Da232072). Although the defendant, R Company filed for an additional retrial, this was rejected. The main issues in this case and lawsuit can be divided into three categories.
① The first issue is whether the actions of the plaintiff's superior, B, constitute "sexual harassment in the workplace" as prohibited by the Equal Employment Act. This issue was not disputed after the first instance court recognized what occurred as "sexual harassment in the workplace." However, the interpretation of “burden of proof” differed from previous decisions, which drew attention.
② The second issue is the legality of measures taken by the defendant company (hereinafter referred to as "R Company") and the employers towards the alleged victim and the female employee who supported her (hereafter, “supporter”). After the complaint, R company reassigned them to new tasks, suspended them, and imposed disciplinary actions. It was questioned whether these actions constituted legitimate personnel measures or unfavorable measures against alleged victims, etc. prohibited by the Equal Employment Act. The first court ruled them as legitimate personnel measures, while the appellate court denied the legitimacy of some of them. The Supreme Court ruled that not only were the measures taken against the plaintiff unfavorable measures against alleged victims, etc, but so were the disciplinary measures against the supporter. The Supreme Court’s ruling was in line with the appellate court to dismiss and remand the case.
③ The third issue is whether the defendant company (R Company) bore responsibility for the illegal acts of the employers in this case. The court of first instance did not recognize such liability, while the court of second instance recognized partial liability for some of the disadvantageous measures. The Supreme Court recognized a broad scope of employer responsibility and also agreed with the appellate court to dismiss and remand the case.
Meanwhile, A filed a lawsuit against the company and individuals she claimed had imposed unfair disciplinary measures against her and her supporter, arguing that the company violated the prohibition provisions in Article 14 (6) of Equal Employment Act. The criminal trial proceeded through three instances: the first verdict was by the Suwon District Court, Ruling on Jan. 31, 2020, 2018Godan1046 [Violation of the Equal Employment Act]), the second verdict was also by the Suwon District Court, Ruling on Nov. 13, 2020, 2020Nor816 [Violation of the Equal Employment Act]), and the third verdict was by the Supreme Court. Ruling on July 21, 2021, 2020Do16858 [Violation of the Equal Employment Act]. In the end, Company R was fined KRW 20 million, the head of the personnel department was fined KRW 8 million, and the chairman of the disciplinary committee was fined KRW 4 million. This case is significant because it is the first one that imposed fines for violating the Equal Employment Acton individuals and the company for disadvantaging alleged sexual harassment victims, etc. However, unlike the civil trials, the reassignment of the victim and her supporter to new tasks was deemed justifiable.
This sexual harassment case began in 2012 and took 5 years to end. The related court cases continued from June 11, 2013 to the final appellate trial on July 23, 2018. Furthermore, the litigation process continued for a total of approximately 8 years. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on July 21, 2021, or 6 years after the victim first filed a lawsuit in 2014. Human rights organizations, labor unions, women's groups, and others formed a joint action committee and provided support to the victim, publicizing her case throughout the process. The media also showed a keen interest in and reported on the case.

(2) Female employees file civil lawsuit and related trial
“A” sued her employers and the company for damages. The defendants were B, her immediate superior, C, the head of the department (Vehicle Performance Department of R&D Division) who is also the overall responsible person, D, the head of the HR Division, and R Company itself. Allegedly, she suffered mental distress due to their actions. A's claims are as follows:
① B, her immediate superior (team leader), used his work position to sexually harass her, persistently demanding sexual conversations or meetings with her for about a year, despite knowing that A is married. This has caused her sexual humiliation and disgust.
② C, the head (director) of the department to which A belongs, violated Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Equal Employment Act by advising her not to report the sexual harassment to the personnel department or outside. Instead, C recommended that she resign along with B if she were to continue to create conflict over the sexual harassment. After she reported to the HR division anyways, C isolated her.
③ D, who was head of the HR Division, neglected his duty to manage and supervise, failed to protect the alleged victim when derogatory remarks about A were made by HR team members like F, such as "A is hot-tempered" and "It's A’s problem that she did not resist B." Also, D unfairly imposed disciplinary action (a reprimand) against A, causing further harm to A. Moreover, D unfairly suspended A from work, which resulted in disadvantages for A who suffered the sexual harassment.
④ R Company, as an employer, has a responsibility to compensate for damages incurred by third parties due to the actions of its employees in accordance with Article 756 of the Civil Act, which states "if a person uses another person to perform work, the employer shall be liable for damages caused by the execution of the work." Therefore, R Company is responsible for the damages cause by B, C, D, and other personnel department employees for their illegal actions.

(3) Personnel actions taken by Company R after A filed a civil lawsuit
Company R disciplined employee E, who supported A in reporting the sexual harassment, with a one-week suspension for failure to comply with working hours despite her being subject to a flexible working hours system. Company R also issued a disciplinary warning to employee G, a subordinate of A, for making aggressive remarks and spreading rumors related to sexual harassment. A included these actions as additional grounds for damages in the civil lawsuit. In addition, A and E filed a relief application for unfair disciplinary action with the Gyeonggi Provincial Labor Relations Commission, and received a decision of unfair disciplinary action against the company (dated December 4, 2013) and a similar decision from the National Labor Relations Commission (dated March 17, 2014).
Meanwhile, on October 17, 2013, Company R adjusted A's duties and excluded her from specialized tasks, assigning only common tasks to her. They also suspended A and E from work, arguing that they possessed confidential company documents that they were not authorized to possess. E requested for A's help to quickly transport these documents off company premises, eventually turning them over to the police when the company attempted to retrieve them. Immediately thereafter, on December 11, 2013, Company R filed a criminal complaint with the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office against A for theft and E for defamation, insult, and violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. The prosecutor decided to suspend the indictment for the theft charge against E and a decision of no charges for the remaining accusations against A, citing that it was difficult to conclude that A was aware of E's act of taking the documents from company premises. \E filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court against the prosecutor's decision to suspend indictment, and the Constitutional Court (2014Hunma574, ruling on Feb. 26, 2015) overturned the prosecutor's decision of suspension of indictment, stating that it was difficult to conclude that E intended to steal or illegally acquire the documents in question.
In response to A's civil lawsuit, all the defendants refuted A's claims, arguing that the duties and disciplinary action given to A were legitimate and reasonable exercises of personnel authority, not retaliatory measures against her for the sexual harassment lawsuit. They also argued that B's actions were personal misconduct unrelated to official duties, for which the employer had no liability.

(4) Civil litigation trial
1) Judgment from the court of first instance Seoul Central District Court, ruling on Dec. 18, 2014, 2013GaHap536064 for Damages (Basic)



1. Defendant B shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000. Between Nov. 1, 2014 and to Dec. 18, 2014, he must pay an annual interest rate of 5%, which will increase to 20% per annum, calculated on a pro-rata basis, thereafter until the date of full payment.
2. The remaining claims against Defendant B by the Plaintiff and claims against Defendants C, D, and R Company are dismissed.
3. The Plaintiff shall bear 1/4 of the litigation costs incurred by the Plaintiff and Defendant B, and Defendant B shall bear the remaining costs. The Plaintiff shall also bear the costs incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendants C, D, and R.
4. The first clause may be provisionally executed.

The court of first instance determined that Defendant B's behavior was sexual harassment, as an ordinary and average person would have felt sexual humiliation or shame. However, regarding Defendant C's behavior, the Court recognized that there were attempts to resolve the issue in a reasonable manner as a manager or person in charge of the organization, and did not consider the conduct illegal. As for Defendant D's behavior, it was only a brief explanation of his personal impression of the plaintiff in a private setting without mentioning specific facts, so it is difficult to consider it an illegal act that damaged the Plaintiff's reputation. There was no evidence to support the claim that Defendant D violated his obligation to take protective measures for the Plaintiff as the head of the personnel team or unfairly disciplined Defendant B. It also ruled that the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and E were legitimate personnel actions unrelated to the sexual harassment incident, and therefore, the Court did not recognize it as illegal conduct. Furthermore, the Court did not hold R Company responsible for Defendant B's sexual harassment because it felt this not a responsibility of R Company and held the same view of Defendant C and D’s actions.

2) Judgment of the Court of Second Instance Seoul High Court, Dec. 18, 2015, 2015Na2003264) (Compensation for Damages (Civil Case))

The plaintiff appealed, this time with only Company R as the defendant. The court of second instance made the following ruling, which differed from the previous court's decision and was in accordance with the provisions of the current Equal Employment Act regarding sexual harassment:


1. The portion of the plaintiff's claim for which the court of first instance ordered the defendant to pay money is hereby cancelled.
The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 10,000,000. Between Nov. 1, 2014 and to Dec. 18, 2014, he must pay an annual interest rate of 5%, which will increase to 20% per annum, calculated on a pro-rata basis, thereafter until the date of full payment.
2. The remaining appeals of the plaintiff against the defendant are dismissed.
3. The total litigation costs between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be divided by 10, with 9/10 to be borne by the plaintiff and the remaining by the defendant.
4. The part regarding the payment of money from paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

① The definition of sexual harassment in the workplace was interpreted broadly to include not only actions with sexual connotations, but also discriminatory remarks based on gender such as "doing household chores at home" directed at female employees.
② Unlike the first-instance judgment, the joint responsibility of Company R and Defendant B for the illegal actions was recognized. However, the responsibility of R was extinguished as B had already compensated the plaintiff for damages after the first trial,
③ Unlike the first-instance judgment, the actions of the director in charge were recognized as disadvantageous towards the plaintiff which are prohibited under Article 14(2) of the Equal Employment Act. These actions included assigning the plaintiff only common duties after she had reported the sexual harassment, and giving negative evaluations to the plaintiff for the report. Company R was recognized as responsible for these unfair actions.
④ The court of second instance stated that current law stipulates that the burden of proof lies with the employer. However in this case, it is reasonable for the employee and the employer to share the burden of proof collectively, and therefore, the burden of proof provision was not applied in this case. Meanwhile, the court also ruled that the disciplinary actions against the plaintiff and the supporter were legitimate personnel actions unrelated to the sexual harassment report, in line with the first judgment.

3) Judgment of the Supreme Court Supreme Court, Dec. 22, 2017, 2016Da202947 (Damages Claim (Tort)



1. The portion of the lower court's judgment that dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages related to the disciplinary action taken against the plaintiff on September 4, 2013, the suspension and placement on standby on December 11, 2013, and the disciplinary action against the plaintiff's co-worker on July 19, 2013, is set aside, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
2. The defendant's (R company) appeal is dismissed.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed the judgment of the court of second instance. The Supreme Court annulled and remanded the original judgment, recognizing the employer's liability for unfavorable treatment under Article 14(2) of the Equal Employment Act, and illegal acts (sexual harassment) by its employees.
The main points of the Supreme Court's decision are as follows:
① The provisions of the Equal Employment Act prohibit unfavorable measures against victims of sexual harassment. Its purpose is not only to promptly and appropriately redress workplace sexual harassment, but also to prevent workplace sexual harassment. It encourages the employer to take appropriate measures against a perpetrator, such as taking disciplinary action without the victim having to fear secondary victimization. If an employer dismisses or takes other unfavorable action against a victim of workplace sexual harassment, this constitutes an illegal act under Article 750 of the Civil Act and also violates Article 14(2) of the Equal Employment Act.
② Whether the employer's actions against the victim are considered illegal, depends on whether the unfavorable measures were taken around the time of the victim's report of the workplace sexual harassment. The following should be considered as well: the circumstances and process surrounding the unfavorable measures; whether the reasons for unfavorable measures stated by the employer existed prior to the victim reporting the harassment; the extent to which the rights or interests of third parties were infringed upon by the actions of the victim; whether the unfavorable measures were exceptional or discriminatory compared to previous practices or similar cases; and whether the victim filed a request for relief related to the unfavorable measures. In determining whether the unfavorable measures are illegal, such factors should be considered comprehensively.
③ According to Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Equal Employment Act, it is difficult to consider it as a direct violation of the law, if an employer takes unfavorable actions against the supporter who provided assistance to the victim.
④ However, when the unfavorable measures taken by the employer against the supporter are unfair and have caused mental distress to the victim as a result, the victimized employee may hold the employer liable for illegal conduct under Article 750 of the Civil Act. The victim can hold the employer liable for illegal conduct even if the unfavorable actions were not directly taken against the victim.
⑤ In cases where a dispute related to sexual harassment arises, the employer must prove that unfavorable actions taken against the victimized employee are unrelated to sexual harassment or that there were justifiable reasons to do so (Article 30 of the Equal Employment Act).

4) Reversed and Remanded Judgment Seoul High Court, ruling on April 20, 2018, 2017Na2076631) [Compensation for Damages]

The reversed and remanded judgment ruled in favor of the plaintiff and supporter, ordered the defendant (R company) to pay KRW 30 million in damages for unfavorable actions taken against them, in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court.


1. The portion of the first-stage (regional) court's judgment concerning the defendant (R), excluding the portion that has been separately determined by the remand decision, which corresponds to the amount specified below for payment, is hereby canceled.
The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff 30 million won, and for this amount, interest shall be calculated at a rate of 5% per annum from November 1, 2014, until April 20, 2018, and at a rate of 20% per annum from the following day until the full amount is paid.
2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal against the defendant is dismissed.
3. The plaintiff shall bear 1/3 of the total litigation costs between the plaintiff and the defendant, while the remaining costs shall be borne by the defendant.
4. The monetary payment portion in Paragraph 1 may be enforced.


5) Significance and impact of the civil lawsuit
① In order to provide practical and definite protection for victims of sexual harassment in the workplace, Article 14 (Action in the Event of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) of the Equal Employment Actwas significantly amended on November 28, 2017, coming into effect on May 29, 2018. With this amendment, measures for the protection of victims and alleged victims ("workers who have suffered harm due to workplace sexual harassment” or “workers who claim to have suffered harm," respectively) during related investigations were newly established (paragraph 3). Sanctions against perpetrators (paragraph 4) were also specified once sexual harassment is confirmed by the investigation. In addition, the scope of protection against unfavorable actions against (alleged) victims was expanded to include "workers who have reported the occurrence of sexual harassment" (paragraph 6). Furthermore, the types of unfavorable measures that employers must not take were specified into seven categories.
② The Supreme Court's ruling on this case was the first to provide criteria for determining whether unfavorable measures taken against (alleged) victims and reporters of sexual harassment are unfair. It was also the first time that the court ruled disciplinary action against the supporter is an unfair unfavorable action taken indirectly against the victim.
③ Furthermore, this is the first ruling to state the duties of the sexual harassment investigator and the liability of the employer for taking unfavorable actions against (alleged) victims. Paragraph 7 was added to the Equal Employment Actin November 2017, and states, "Persons who have learned confidential information during the investigation process shall not disclose such information to others, against the will of the victim and etc., except for when reporting to the employer or providing necessary information requested by relevant agencies.“

(5) Accusation, criminal lawsuit, and trial
This criminal lawsuit holds significance in that it is the first ruling to impose fines on HR personnel and the company for engaging in discriminatory treatment of the victim of sexual harassment, which violates the Equal Employment Act.

1) Judgment of the court of first instance Suwon District Court ruling on Jan. 31, 2020, 2018godan1046 [Violation of the Equal Employment Act]

The main points of the first-instance judgment are as follows:


1. Defendant J (Head of HR Department) shall be fined KRW 8 million, Defendant K (Deputy Head of R&D Department) shall be fined KRW 4 million, and Defendant R company shall be fined KRW 20 million.
2. If the defendants fail to pay the above fines, they shall be detained in a labor camp for a period calculated at KRW 100,000 per day. The defendants shall be ordered to make a significant portion of the fines as a contribution.
3. Defendant J (mediator for labor dispute concerning the plaintiff) is found not guilty.
4. The summary of the part of the judgment concerning Defendant J shall be made public.

① Employers, corporate representatives, officers, and other employees of a corporation or their agents shall not dismiss or take other unfavorable actions against employees who have suffered (or claimed to have suffered) from workplace sexual harassment. However, Defendant D, as the chairman of the disciplinary committee, and Defendant H, as the vice chairman of the disciplinary committee, imposed unfair disciplinary measures, suspensions from duty, and job suspensions and instigated prosecution against the victims and supporters of the sexual harassment claim. These defendants have conspired to take unfavorable actions against an alleged victim of sexual harassment.
② Defendant R Company neglected to manage and supervise to prevent the illegal acts of Defendants D and H.
③ Defendant J (Operations Manager of the System Engineering Division at R&D Department of the Defendant Company) is accused of taking unfavorable actions by excluding the victim from specialized tasks and assigning only common tasks. However, he was not actually excluding the victim from specialized tasks, and the actual number of common tasks was only 3 instead of 5. Therefore, it is difficult to consider it as a discriminatory work assignment or unfavorable measures taken against an alleged victim of sexual harassment.

2) Judgment of court of second instance Suwon District Court ruling on Nov. 13, 2020, 2020no816 [Violation of the Equal Employment Act]

The second-instance judgment regarding the appeals of Defendant J, H, and R Corporation and the appeals of the prosecutor against Defendant J and C was as follows.


1. The part of the original judgment that pertains to Defendant R Corporation is annulled.
2. Defendant R Corporation is fined KRW 20 million.
3. Defendant R Corporation is ordered to deposit the significant amount of the fine.
4. Defendant J of Defendant R Corporation is acquitted of the charge of unfairly changing job assignments.
The acquittal of this charge is publicly announced.
5. The appeals of Defendants D and H, and the appeals of the prosecutor against Defendant J and C are all rejected.

3) Judgment of the Supreme Court Supreme Court ruling on July 21, 2021, 2020do16858 [Violation of the Equal Employment Act]

Defendants D and H, R Corporation, and the prosecutor appealed the judgment, but the appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court, thereby confirming the ruling of the Suwon District Court (court of second instance).

2. Dispute regarding sexual harassment by a female superior Kim El-lim, "Sexual Harassment: Law and Dispute Resolution Cases," Episteme, 2023, pp. 315-316.


(1) Case Overview
The plaintiff, A, is a female manager at B Research Institute, while the defendant, C, is a female director in her 60s at B.
A alleges that C would often kiss employees on the lips while intoxicated. During a department workshop, while having dinner and drinking with colleagues, C forcefully kissed A after grabbing her face. A also claims that during subsequent department gatherings, she refused C's advances, yet C still attempted to kiss her. As a result of C's actions, A experienced sexual humiliation and decided to resign, filing a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission.
On the other hand, C admits to hugging A but denies engaging in the alleged actions, such as the kisses claimed by A. C argues that A's complaint seems to be motivated by retaliatory intent stemming from work-related dissatisfaction and incidents where she felt slighted by A's behavior at other social gatherings.
(2) Decision of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea Decision made on July 30, 2014, 14 Jinjung 480 (Sexual harassment)



1. Respondent is ordered to receive special human rights education organized by the National Human Rights Commission.
2. President of B institution is recommended to take disciplinary action against the perpetrator, and to take measures for the perpetrator to attend the special human rights education organized by the National Human Rights Commission. Also, it is recommended to establish measures to prevent recurrence of the sexual harassment, such as managing the sexual harassment prevention education program in a substantial manner.