South Korean court rules firing due to lack of driving skills unfair

A South Korean court has ruled that it is unfair to fire an employee for being inexperienced at driving, even though driving skills were a preferential condition for employment.
According to a Korean legal professional on the 3rd, the 13th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court recently filed a lawsuit against construction company A for a lawsuit filed by the Central Labor Relations Commission (CRC).
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the appeal for relief filed by the plaintiff. Mr. B was employed by Company A in 2023 as an employee in charge of trade support and document management. After the trial period, Company A terminated the employment of Mr. B.
The contract was terminated without written notice. Since Company A had listed driving ability as a preferential treatment in its employment advertisement, Mr. B's lack of driving experience was cited as the reason for his dismissal.
Mr. B sought relief from the local labor commission (LOC) on the grounds that his dismissal was unfair, and the LLC accepted his request.
Company A appealed the decision and applied for a retrial at the Central Labor Relations Commission, but was turned down, so the company filed a lawsuit. Company A argued that driving skills were a "term of employment contract."
The court did not accept Company A's argument. Being able to drive was merely a preferential treatment, and was not a condition of the employment contract.
The first instance court ruled that this was not acceptable. The court stated, "Whether or not an employee can drive is merely a preferential treatment and cannot be recognized as a condition of the employment contract. In addition, if the job requires driving proficiency,
"It is common for this to be clearly stated in the employment advertisement or at least verified before employment." The fact that B said he was a novice driver during the employment process was also used as evidence.
The court also pointed out that the procedure was illegal. The court ruled that "the employment contract was terminated by the company's unilateral notice against Mr. B's will. The company only verbally expressed its intention to dismiss him, and did not provide a written explanation for the reason.
It is illegal because they did not know about it."