Residents Lose Second Appeal Over "Ban on Acceptance of Resignations" Damages Lawsuit

Seoul Central District Court Rules
"Not an Infringement on Freedom of Occupational Choice"

In 2024, resident doctors who submitted their resignations in protest against the government's policy to increase medical school admissions—and subsequently filed a lawsuit for damages after the government issued an order prohibiting the acceptance of their resignations—have lost both their first and second trials.

According to Yonhap News Agency on June 6, the Seoul Central District Court Civil Appellate Division 5-3 (Presiding Judges Heo Yonggu, Jang Junhyun, and Yeom Gichang) recently dismissed the appeal of two resigned residents, including Mr. A, in a lawsuit against Daewoo Academy, the training hospital, and the state. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, upholding the verdict of the first trial.

Medical staff are moving at a large hospital in Seoul.

Mr. A and other residents submitted their resignations collectively and left the hospital in February 2024 in protest against the government's plan to increase medical school quotas. In response, the government issued orders to maintain medical services and prohibit the acceptance of resignations under the Medical Service Act, which were later withdrawn about four months afterward. In August of the same year, Mr. A and others filed a lawsuit, arguing that "the order prohibiting acceptance of resignations infringed upon our freedom to choose an occupation, and we suffered damages because we were unable to work at other hospitals during the period the order was in effect."

During the trial, the residents argued that "the resignation of residents did not increase the general mortality rate or cause significant harm to public health." On the other hand, the training hospital countered, stating, "Because administrative acts possess binding force (meaning their validity cannot be denied even if there are flaws), there is an obligation to comply with them," and maintained, "Not accepting the resignations was lawful." The hospital further added, "Even if the action were deemed illegal, there was neither intent nor negligence involved."

In October last year, the court in the first trial did not accept the residents' arguments, stating, "The government issued the administrative order based on a professional judgment that the collective resignation of residents could pose a significant threat to public health, and there is no reason to consider this judgment unjustified." The court further noted, "Other than preventing collective resignations and departures from the medical field through the administrative order, there does not appear to be any other suitable means to effectively control the medical service gap and the resulting risks under the National Health Act."

The appellate court's decision was the same as the first trial. The appellate judges explained, "The reasons for the plaintiffs' appeal do not differ significantly from the arguments made in the first trial, and the initial judgment is deemed legitimate."

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