Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Unlawful Remuneration and Suspicion of Preferential Treatment)” (Unfair Dismissal 134)
- Date2026/01/22 04:09
- Read 253
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full (all claims upheld) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (unlawful remuneration and suspicion of preferential treatment).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae104 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.01.08 · Outcome: All claims upheld
Summary of key issue: a.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns an employee of a credit union–type institution who was subjected to disciplinary dismissal on grounds of unlawful payment of remuneration, unlawful hiring of a person engaged in another occupation, unlawful payment of fees and provision of preferential treatment to a specific corporation, and who then filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on whether the grounds for discipline existed and whether the level of discipline was appropriate, and determined whether the disciplinary dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “where some of the grounds for discipline are acknowledged but the employer (the credit union) in effect merely followed the sanctions requested by the central association without conducting its own independent review of the level of discipline, the resulting disciplinary dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal by reason of deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the hiring of Park ○○ had not followed the formal recruitment procedures prescribed by the internal regulations of the credit union, that remuneration had been paid despite no actual work being performed, that the applicant had effectively acknowledged, during the Commission’s hearing and in the Q&A process with the central association, both his role as the person responsible for the hiring and the impropriety of the conduct, and that the conduct clearly violated internal regulations and therefore constituted grounds for discipline.
With respect to the unlawful payment of fees and provision of preferential treatment to a specific corporation, the panel took into account that the applicant consistently claimed to have acted pursuant to instructions from the board of directors or superiors, that the precise extent of the applicant’s involvement as to who was the contracting party to the sublease agreement and how the decision to pay the fees was made could not be clearly ascertained, and that it was difficult to attribute personal responsibility to the applicant solely on the basis of his position as “person in charge of the work.”
Nevertheless, the respondent, without conducting its own review of the level of discipline, resolved to impose disciplinary dismissal in accordance with the sanctions requested by the central association, thereby losing the essence of the discretionary power that a disciplinary authority must exercise. The panel further found that, in light of the grounds for discipline that were actually established, the imposition of disciplinary dismissal was socially excessive and violated the principle of proportionality.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case constituted an unfair dismissal resulting from deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even where some misconduct is acknowledged, if the level of discipline is excessive in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, whether any personal gain was involved, and the degree of instruction and involvement, there is room to actively challenge the dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission on the ground of unfair dismissal (excessive disciplinary sanction). In particular, where the conduct at issue arose in the course of performing duties pursuant to instructions from superiors or the board of directors, it is important to systematically organize evidence and statements that demonstrate the employee’s actual decision-making authority and scope of involvement.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even where the central association or a higher-level body requests sanctions, the disciplinary authority must itself comprehensively review the scope and degree of the misconduct, the employee’s role, whether any personal gain was involved, and the employee’s past record in determining the level of discipline. If internal regulations do not clearly set out standards for determining the level of discipline, and if reasonable grounds are not documented as to why “dismissal (disciplinary dismissal)” was necessary in the particular case, there is a significant risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find an abuse of discretionary power in imposing discipline.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
(1) With respect to the unlawful payment of remuneration and the unlawful hiring of a person engaged in another occupation, the hiring of Park ○○ did not follow the formal recruitment procedures prescribed by the regulations of the credit union in this case, it was confirmed that remuneration was paid even though Park ○○ did not actually provide work, the applicant in effect acknowledged in his statements during our Commission’s hearing that the conduct was improper, and in the Q&A process with the central association he admitted that he was the person responsible for hiring Park ○○. Accordingly, the conduct is deemed to constitute a clear ground for discipline as a violation of internal regulations.
(2) With respect to the unlawful payment of fees and provision of preferential treatment to a specific corporation, the applicant asserts that he acted pursuant to instructions from the board of directors or superiors, and the extent to which the applicant was involved in determining the contracting party to the sublease agreement or in the process of deciding to pay the fees cannot be clearly ascertained. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute responsibility to the applicant solely on the ground that he held the position of person in charge of the work.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The respondent resolved to discipline the applicant in line with the sanctions requested by the central association without reviewing the level of discipline, thereby losing the essence of the discretionary power that a disciplinary authority must exercise. As the level of discipline is excessive in light of the grounds for discipline, the disposition of “disciplinary dismissal” in this case is unfair, and therefore there is no need to further examine the remaining issue of the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
(1) With respect to the unlawful payment of remuneration and the unlawful hiring of a person engaged in another occupation, the hiring of Park ○○ did not follow the formal recruitment procedures prescribed by the regulations of the credit union in this case, it was confirmed that remuneration was paid even though Park ○○ did not actually provide work, the applicant in effect acknowledged in his statements during our Commission’s hearing that the conduct was improper, and in the Q&A process with the central association he admitted that he was the person responsible for hiring Park ○○. Accordingly, the conduct is deemed to constitute a clear ground for discipline as a violation of internal regulations.
(2) With respect to the unlawful payment of fees and provision of preferential treatment to a specific corporation, the applicant asserts that he acted pursuant to instructions from the board of directors or superiors, and the extent to which the applicant was involved in determining the contracting party to the sublease agreement or in the process of deciding to pay the fees cannot be clearly ascertained. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute responsibility to the applicant solely on the ground that he held the position of person in charge of the work.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The respondent resolved to discipline the applicant in line with the sanctions requested by the central association without reviewing the level of discipline, thereby losing the essence of the discretionary power that a disciplinary authority must exercise. As the level of discipline is excessive in light of the grounds for discipline, the disposition of “disciplinary dismissal” in this case is unfair, and therefore there is no need to further examine the remaining issue of the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Voluntarily Resign (KakaoTalk Farewell Message and Immediate Departure Right After Interview During Probationary Period)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (unlawful remuneration and suspicion of preferential treatment), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Voluntarily Resign (KakaoTalk Farewell Message and Immediate Departure Right After Interview During Probationary Period)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to excessive disciplinary sanction (unlawful remuneration and suspicion of preferential treatment) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Unlawful Remuneration and Suspicion of Preferential Treatment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full (all claims upheld) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (unlawful remuneration and suspicion of preferential treatment).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae104 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.01.08 · Outcome: All claims upheld
Summary of key issue: a.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns an employee of a credit union–type institution who was subjected to disciplinary dismissal on grounds of unlawful payment of remuneration, unlawful hiring of a person engaged in another occupation, unlawful payment of fees and provision of preferential treatment to a specific corporation, and who then filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on whether the grounds for discipline existed and whether the level of discipline was appropriate, and determined whether the disciplinary dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, “where some of the grounds for discipline are acknowledged but the employer (the credit union) in effect merely followed the sanctions requested by the central association without conducting its own independent review of the level of discipline, the resulting disciplinary dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal by reason of deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the hiring of Park ○○ had not followed the formal recruitment procedures prescribed by the internal regulations of the credit union, that remuneration had been paid despite no actual work being performed, that the applicant had effectively acknowledged, during the Commission’s hearing and in the Q&A process with the central association, both his role as the person responsible for the hiring and the impropriety of the conduct, and that the conduct clearly violated internal regulations and therefore constituted grounds for discipline.
With respect to the unlawful payment of fees and provision of preferential treatment to a specific corporation, the panel took into account that the applicant consistently claimed to have acted pursuant to instructions from the board of directors or superiors, that the precise extent of the applicant’s involvement as to who was the contracting party to the sublease agreement and how the decision to pay the fees was made could not be clearly ascertained, and that it was difficult to attribute personal responsibility to the applicant solely on the basis of his position as “person in charge of the work.”
Nevertheless, the respondent, without conducting its own review of the level of discipline, resolved to impose disciplinary dismissal in accordance with the sanctions requested by the central association, thereby losing the essence of the discretionary power that a disciplinary authority must exercise. The panel further found that, in light of the grounds for discipline that were actually established, the imposition of disciplinary dismissal was socially excessive and violated the principle of proportionality.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case constituted an unfair dismissal resulting from deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even where some misconduct is acknowledged, if the level of discipline is excessive in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, whether any personal gain was involved, and the degree of instruction and involvement, there is room to actively challenge the dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission on the ground of unfair dismissal (excessive disciplinary sanction). In particular, where the conduct at issue arose in the course of performing duties pursuant to instructions from superiors or the board of directors, it is important to systematically organize evidence and statements that demonstrate the employee’s actual decision-making authority and scope of involvement.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even where the central association or a higher-level body requests sanctions, the disciplinary authority must itself comprehensively review the scope and degree of the misconduct, the employee’s role, whether any personal gain was involved, and the employee’s past record in determining the level of discipline. If internal regulations do not clearly set out standards for determining the level of discipline, and if reasonable grounds are not documented as to why “dismissal (disciplinary dismissal)” was necessary in the particular case, there is a significant risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find an abuse of discretionary power in imposing discipline.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Adjudicated
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
(1) With respect to the unlawful payment of remuneration and the unlawful hiring of a person engaged in another occupation, the hiring of Park ○○ did not follow the formal recruitment procedures prescribed by the regulations of the credit union in this case, it was confirmed that remuneration was paid even though Park ○○ did not actually provide work, the applicant in effect acknowledged in his statements during our Commission’s hearing that the conduct was improper, and in the Q&A process with the central association he admitted that he was the person responsible for hiring Park ○○. Accordingly, the conduct is deemed to constitute a clear ground for discipline as a violation of internal regulations.
(2) With respect to the unlawful payment of fees and provision of preferential treatment to a specific corporation, the applicant asserts that he acted pursuant to instructions from the board of directors or superiors, and the extent to which the applicant was involved in determining the contracting party to the sublease agreement or in the process of deciding to pay the fees cannot be clearly ascertained. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute responsibility to the applicant solely on the ground that he held the position of person in charge of the work.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The respondent resolved to discipline the applicant in line with the sanctions requested by the central association without reviewing the level of discipline, thereby losing the essence of the discretionary power that a disciplinary authority must exercise. As the level of discipline is excessive in light of the grounds for discipline, the disposition of “disciplinary dismissal” in this case is unfair, and therefore there is no need to further examine the remaining issue of the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
(1) With respect to the unlawful payment of remuneration and the unlawful hiring of a person engaged in another occupation, the hiring of Park ○○ did not follow the formal recruitment procedures prescribed by the regulations of the credit union in this case, it was confirmed that remuneration was paid even though Park ○○ did not actually provide work, the applicant in effect acknowledged in his statements during our Commission’s hearing that the conduct was improper, and in the Q&A process with the central association he admitted that he was the person responsible for hiring Park ○○. Accordingly, the conduct is deemed to constitute a clear ground for discipline as a violation of internal regulations.
(2) With respect to the unlawful payment of fees and provision of preferential treatment to a specific corporation, the applicant asserts that he acted pursuant to instructions from the board of directors or superiors, and the extent to which the applicant was involved in determining the contracting party to the sublease agreement or in the process of deciding to pay the fees cannot be clearly ascertained. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute responsibility to the applicant solely on the ground that he held the position of person in charge of the work.
b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
The respondent resolved to discipline the applicant in line with the sanctions requested by the central association without reviewing the level of discipline, thereby losing the essence of the discretionary power that a disciplinary authority must exercise. As the level of discipline is excessive in light of the grounds for discipline, the disposition of “disciplinary dismissal” in this case is unfair, and therefore there is no need to further examine the remaining issue of the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. /
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Voluntarily Resign (KakaoTalk Farewell Message and Immediate Departure Right After Interview During Probationary Period)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (unlawful remuneration and suspicion of preferential treatment), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Voluntarily Resign (KakaoTalk Farewell Message and Immediate Departure Right After Interview During Probationary Period)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to excessive disciplinary sanction (unlawful remuneration and suspicion of preferential treatment) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Unlawful Remuneration and Suspicion of Preferential Treatment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
