Joonhyung “June” Park
P june@decentlaw.ioJune was involved in activities with the Korea Labor Foundation and served as an examiner for the Certified Labor Attorney exam. He also handled a variety of civil and criminal cases at Pyungan Law Firm and Logos Law LLC.
- Labor / Employment Disputes
- Civil
- Criminal
- Administrative
- IP Litigation
- Divorce / Family
성공사례
관련소식
-
법률정보Major Industrial Accident Liability: Legal Risks Companies Must Rigorously Assess
What Is a Serious Industrial Accident? A “serious industrial accident” is premised on an industrial accident as defined under Article 2(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Accordingly, an incident that does not qualify as an industrial accident under that Act cannot be recognized as a serious industrial accident under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. The Serious Accidents Punishment Act applies only when specific statutory requirements are met. The representative criteria are as follows: One or more fatalities; Two or more persons injured in the same accident who require medical treatment for at least six months; or Three or more persons diagnosed within one year with occupational diseases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as acute poisoning caused by the same hazardous factor. An important point to note is that the victims are not required to be “employees” in the strict sense. The Act covers all “workers” who provide labor, regardless of the contractual form, including subcontracting, outsourcing, or consignment arrangements. In practice, accidents that frequently give rise to issues include falls, crushing or entrapment accidents, collapses, and overturning incidents. Even if an accident appears to be a simple safety incident on its face, it may still be classified as a serious industrial accident if the statutory requirements are satisfied. While not every accident constitutes a serious industrial accident, the assumption that “this level of accident will be fine” can itself lead to significant legal risk. Key Risk Areas for Companies and Executive Management One of the most common misconceptions in serious industrial accident cases is the belief that liability ends at the level of on-site managers. In reality, investigations and trials focus on whether the business owner or executive management fulfilled their obligations to ensure safety and health under Articles 4 or 5 of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. A particularly critical issue is the effectiveness of the safety management system. Even where safety manuals and internal regulations formally exist, failure to ensure that they function in practice can be evaluated as an adverse factor. If a safety and health management system exists only on paper, or if training and inspections are conducted in a merely formal or perfunctory manner, this may be deemed a failure to fulfill the statutory duty to secure safety and health under Article 4. In such cases, the existence of documentation alone can actually serve as unfavorable evidence demonstrating non-compliance. Where a business owner or executive management violates Articles 4 or 5 and causes a serious industrial accident resulting in one or more deaths, they may be subject to imprisonment for at least one year or a fine of up to KRW 1 billion, or both. In addition, the corporation or institution itself may be fined up to KRW 5 billion (Articles 6 and 7 of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act). Mandatory Actions Immediately After an Accident Occurs In serious industrial accident cases, the company’s response in the immediate aftermath often determines the outcome. Key considerations include: Organizing internal reporting and statement procedures; Separating internal investigations from external criminal investigations; Managing employee statements appropriately; Exercising caution when responding to the media, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and the police. When a serious industrial accident occurs, the business owner must immediately suspend the relevant work, evacuate workers from the site, and take all necessary measures to ensure safety and health. In addition, the occurrence of the accident must be reported without delay to the Minister of Employment and Labor. Whether these initial measures were appropriate is a key factor in determining, during subsequent investigations and trials, whether executive management fulfilled their duty to secure safety and health. In practice, decisions made during the first few hours often shape the entire course of the investigation. It is essential to recognize that well-intentioned but ill-considered actions can, in some cases, increase legal liability rather than mitigate it. Decent Law Firm’s Support – Post-Incident Response and Preventive Measures Decent Law Firm does not limit its role in serious industrial accident cases to post-incident criminal defense. Our support includes: Criminal investigation 대응 and defense against criminal liability; Review and diagnosis of safety management systems and legal risk exposure; Development, revision, and verification of implementation of manuals, training programs, and internal regulations; Advisory services aimed at preventing the recurrence of similar accidents. The core of serious industrial accident 대응 lies not in one-time defensive measures, but in building a structure that can prevent recurrence. Even after an incident, Decent focuses on establishing sustainable compliance frameworks that meaningfully reduce the company’s long-term legal and operational burden. Before it is too late, we encourage you to seek assistance from experienced professionals.
2025-12-25 -
법률정보
Key Issues Companies Must Understand Regarding Wage Peak Systems
Concept and Legal Nature of the Wage Peak System A wage peak system is a scheme under which an employee’s wages are gradually reduced after reaching a certain age, in exchange for maintaining or extending employment until the mandatory retirement age. Against the backdrop of an aging workforce and policies favoring longer employment, many companies adopt wage peak systems as a means to mitigate rising labor costs. However, this system is not merely an internal HR policy. Because it entails a fundamental change to core working conditions, operating a wage peak system without proper legal review can expose a company to significant dispute risks. Not all wage reductions are justified simply by labeling them as a “wage peak system.” Whether such a system is lawful depends on how it is designed and implemented in practice. Companies are therefore advised to carefully review the points below before proceeding. Key Legal Issues in Practice In practice, the problematic issues are quite clear: Whether wage reductions based on age constitute “unreasonable discrimination” prohibited under the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Promotion of Employment of Older Persons Whether the scale of wage reduction and the period of application are excessive Whether corresponding measures—such as reductions in workload, responsibilities, or changes in job duties—have actually been implemented to offset the wage reduction Many companies focus solely on adjusting wages, while treating accompanying measures such as workload reduction, job reassignment, or reduced working hours as a mere formality—or failing to implement them altogether. In such cases, the wage peak system can become the starting point of serious disputes, regardless of its stated purpose. These issues often extend beyond labor disputes and escalate into civil claims for unpaid wage differentials, making them far from trivial. Summary of Supreme Court Standards In determining the validity of a wage peak system, the Supreme Court comprehensively considers the following factors (Supreme Court Decision dated May 26, 2022, Case No. 2017Da292343): The legitimacy of the purpose for introducing the wage peak system The extent of disadvantage suffered by the affected employees Whether measures corresponding to the wage reduction were introduced, and whether such measures are appropriate Whether the financial resources saved through the wage peak system were used for its original intended purpose If any one of these elements is lacking, the wage peak system may be deemed invalid as age-based discrimination. In practice, there have been numerous cases where companies were required to retroactively pay substantial amounts of unpaid wages despite having implemented such systems. In particular, Korean courts distinguish between “retirement-extension-type” and “retirement-maintenance-type” wage peak systems. Where wages are reduced without extending the retirement age (the retirement-maintenance type), the likelihood of invalidation is significantly higher unless a clear and reasonable justification exists. Such systems therefore require especially careful design. Ultimately, a wage peak system that merely satisfies formal requirements can result in serious financial and legal liabilities for the company. Practical Checkpoints for Companies and Decent Law Firm’s Support When operating a wage peak system, companies should comprehensively review the following points: Whether amendments to the rules of employment were properly approved in accordance with Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act, including obtaining consent from a labor union representing a majority of employees Whether individual consent from affected employees is required Whether substantive and practical measures corresponding to wage reductions have been established and are actually being implemented Even if a wage peak system is already in place, it is necessary to reassess whether the current operation complies with judicial standards. Responding after a dispute has arisen inevitably involves higher costs and risks. Accordingly, conducting legal review at the system design stage or during operational audits is the most practical way to protect the company. Decent Law Firm provides practical legal support tailored to each company’s organizational structure and HR framework, drawing on extensive advisory and dispute resolution experience with wage peak systems, led by attorneys with prior labor law and HR expertise. If your company is already involved in this issue or requires proactive risk management, we strongly recommend seeking legal advice—even on a preliminary basis.
2025-12-23
