Hello, I am attorney Jongha Choi at Cheongchul Law Firm.

Every business has busy and slow periods. During particularly busy times, many workplaces are desperate for extra help. So what happens when, on top of that, an existing employee asks to take leave? Can the employer refuse?

From the employee's perspective, the right to rest is self-evident; from the employer's, losing even one person during a crunch is a serious problem. Both sides have a point, but the bottom line is this: the employer cannot end the matter with a simple "no."

The Supreme Court of Korea has held that the right to annual paid leave arises automatically once the worker satisfies the statutory requirements; no act of "granting" leave by the employer is required (Supreme Court Decision 99Do317, Nov. 28, 2000 (대법원 2000. 11. 28. 선고 99도317 판결)). In other words, the employee acquires the right to annual leave even without the employer's permission or approval.

That said, having the right to take leave does not mean an employee can take it at "any time." Article 60(5) of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법 제60조 제5항) provides that the employer shall grant annual leave at the time requested by the employee, but adds a proviso: "if granting leave at the requested time would cause serious disruption to business operations, the employer may change the timing."

When, then, may an employer exercise this right to change the timing? The Supreme Court has held that the legitimacy of exercising the timing-change right must be assessed by comprehensively considering (i) the nature and content of the work, (ii) the expected number of workers and the workload, (iii) the timing of the leave request, and (iv) the necessity of securing a replacement worker and the time required to do so (Supreme Court Decision 2021Do11886, Jul. 17, 2025 (대법원 2025. 7. 17. 선고 2021도11886 판결)).

However, such circumstances are rarely recognized. In a case where a field appliance-repair technician requested annual leave during the "bridge" days between consecutive holidays, the company refused on the ground of a "surge in repairs," treated the absence as unauthorized, and imposed a 24-day suspension. The court found that the mere general possibility of an increased workload for remaining staff did not amount to a "serious disruption," that it was not a true peak season, and that leave had been approved for other coworkers during the same period, holding that the exercise of the timing-change right itself was unlawful (Seoul High Court Decision 2018Nu57171, Apr. 4, 2019 (서울고등법원 2019. 4. 4. 선고 2018누57171 판결)). It should also be noted, however, that in this case there was a clear record of leave being approved for other employees during the same period.