Relocation of a Worker Based in Korea for Allegations of Stalking: Korean Employment Law Updates

A Seoul Administrative Court ruled that it is lawful for an employer, even before a stalking charge was adjudicated, to change an employee’s workplace when the employee is identified as the perpetrator of stalking against an alleged victim, provided that a report was filed with the employer.

In May 2026, the 3rd Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court ruled in favor of the Employer.

Facts

1. The Employee worked for the Korea Railroad Corporation (“Employer”) since 2006. Alleged Victim, who belongs to the same regional maintenance unit of the Employer, filed a grievance with the Employer in June 2024, claiming that the Employee was “stalking” the alleged Victim.
2. Shortly after the report, the Employer transferred the Employee to a different region/maintenance facility to separate the employees.
3. Dissatisfied with the transfer, Employee filed an application for relief with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission in September 2024. The case was dismissed.
4. In March 2025, the Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed Employee’s application for reconsideration.
5. In May 2025, Employee filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court requesting the cancellation of the Central Labor Relations Commission’s reconsideration ruling.

Seoul Administrative Court Holding

The Employee, in short, argued that: “Taking personnel action on someone with the assumption they are a stalker based solely on a stalking report violates the principle of presumption of innocence.”

The Seoul Admin Court noted that Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Act on the Prevention of Stalking and Protection of Victims, etc. (Stalking Prevention Act) stipulates that “a person employing a victim may take appropriate measures, such as changing work contact information and workplace, or reassigning, upon the victim’s request.” Article 5 of the Stalking Prevention Act requires the head of a public organization to establish internal prevention guidelines for the prevention of stalking. Article 8 of the Employer’s prevention guidelines stipulates that protective measures may be implemented even before a disciplinary decision is made against the perpetrator. Therefore, the Employer may take measures, such as changing the workplace as a temporary or provisional measure, upon receipt of a report, even before the stalking act is acknowledged.

The court opined that: “Regardless of whether stalking was acknowledged, the personnel transfer was issued to separate the employees as part of measures to protect the complainant and prevent stalking. The business necessity of the personnel transfer is recognized, and the claim that the [Employer] concluded [Employee] was the stalker by issuing the transfer cannot be accepted.”

About Author

Sean Hayes is the first non-Korean attorney to have worked in the Korean court system (the Constitutional Court of Korea) and one of the first non-Koreans to be a regular member of a Korean law faculty. Sean is ranked, for Korea, as one of only two non-Korean lawyers as a Top Attorney by AsiaLaw, and IPG Legal is consistently ranked Top Dispute Resolution Law for our litigation services.

If you would like a consultation with an English-speaking lawyer in Korea, please schedule a call at: Schedule a Call with an Attorney.