"Prove It"... Fine Confirmed for Former Asiana CEO Who Denied Menstrual Leave

Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The former CEO of Asiana Airlines, who refused menstrual leave requested by flight attendants, has been sentenced to a fine.

On the 25th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Dongwon) announced that it upheld the previous court's ruling to impose a fine of 2 million KRW on former Asiana Airlines CEO Kim Sucheon, who was indicted for violating the Labor Standards Act.

Former CEO Kim was prosecuted for refusing to grant menstrual leave approximately 140 times over the course of about a year starting from May 2014, requested by 15 flight attendants. Article 73 of the current Labor Standards Act (Menstrual Leave) stipulates that "an employer must grant one day of menstrual leave per month if a female worker requests it." Article 114 of the same law states that violating this provision can result in a fine of up to 5 million KRW.

Kim's defense argued, "At that time, the 'existence of menstrual symptoms,' which is a requirement for granting menstrual leave to the workers in question, was not proven," and added, "On the contrary, some requests for menstrual leave were concentrated on days adjacent to holidays or days off, and when the requests were denied, they were repeatedly resubmitted, raising many suspicions about the existence of menstrual symptoms."

The first trial sentenced him to a fine of 2 million KRW. The court at that time pointed out, "Requiring proof of the existence of menstrual symptoms when requesting menstrual leave excessively infringes on the privacy and human rights of the workers and may discourage requests, rendering the system ineffective." It stated that unless there is relatively clear evidence that menstrual symptoms do not exist, menstrual leave must be granted upon request.

Furthermore, "Menstrual symptoms do not end in one day but may occur over several days, and since the duration and cycle are not fixed, circumstances such as requests being concentrated on days adjacent to holidays or days off or multiple resubmissions cannot be considered relatively clear evidence that menstrual symptoms do not exist," the court added.

The second trial also dismissed his appeal, stating, "Considering the company's work characteristics and the proportion of female workers, it is difficult to see any justifiable reason for not granting menstrual leave."

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The court stated, "The lower court did not err in legal interpretation or reasoning regarding the burden of proof on the existence of menstrual symptoms, the establishment and number of offenses for violating the Labor Standards Act, justifiable acts and conflicts of duties, and reasonable expectations," and dismissed the appeal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.