SEOUL, South Korea — In April 2026, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled that employment systems granting higher starting ranks to individuals who completed military service may constitute gender discrimination when they affect promotions, stating that such policies disadvantage women who do not undergo conscription despite performing the same work over the same period.
The court issued the ruling in a case involving a personnel system that credited military service with higher initial rank, which influenced promotion outcomes in the workplace. It said the practice created unequal conditions between male and female employees.
South Korea requires most able-bodied men to complete 18 to 21 months of military service, while women may serve voluntarily but are not required to do so. The difference in obligation has led to continued policy discussions on whether and how to recognize military service in civilian employment.
The ruling follows a 1999 decision by the Constitutional Court of Korea, which invalidated a preferential points system that added scores for military service in recruitment exams. The court ruled that the system violated constitutional principles of equality and merit-based hiring. Authorities abolished the system in 2001.
A 2025 survey by the Presidential Committee of National Cohesion reported that 71 percent of men in their 20s and 30s supported reinstating a preferential hiring points system for those who completed military service.
Researchers have said military service can delay education and entry into the workforce for men, affecting early career progression. Sociologists Lee Sang-min of Hanyang University and Seol Dong-hoon of Jeonbuk National University have studied how the issue relates to employment competition and perceptions of fairness.
Legal experts have said policies that tie military service to hiring or promotion can disadvantage women and other groups not subject to conscription. The Constitutional Court has ruled that military service is a basic civic duty and does not warrant additional economic compensation beyond protection from direct disadvantage.
Policymakers have discussed alternatives, including financial compensation, education benefits and career support programs that do not affect hiring or promotion outcomes.
