Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Access to and Leakage of Personal Information)” (Unfair Dismissal 261)
- Date2026/03/06 04:09
- Read 231
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9568 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.16 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The worker’s unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information at Workplace No. 1, and unauthorized access to Workplaces Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were recognized as grounds for discipline, while unauthorized access to Workplace No. 5 was not recognized as a ground for discipline due to insufficient proof.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
(1) The Corporation is an entity in which a high degree of public interest is required and which handles large volumes of personal information of workers and employers, making strict control of personal information necessary…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose where an employee of a public corporation with a high degree of public character was dismissed for having accessed personal information of several workplaces without authorization and having leaked information from one of those workplaces, and then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure. It ultimately dismissed the worker’s application for relief.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where a public‑sector employee has accessed personal information of multiple workplaces without authorization and leaked part of that information, does dismissal as a disciplinary measure constitute an unfair dismissal in that the level of discipline is, by social norms, manifestly unreasonable?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer, a public corporation, is an institution that handles large volumes of personal information of workers and employers and therefore requires strict control of such information; that the worker, with 12 years of service at the Corporation and holding Grade 4, was in a position and of seniority such that he could fully recognize the problematic nature of his misconduct, and that warning messages were constantly displayed on the system upon access; that even if the leakage following unauthorized access occurred only once, it was directly connected to the worker’s private interests in a redevelopment project and thus constituted serious misconduct; and that the unauthorized leakage had led to a summary indictment for violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, thereby publicly confirming the illegality of the conduct.
In light of the above, the Commission found that, since the grounds for discipline were established and the requirements under the personnel regulations—such as providing an opportunity to explain and granting a right to appeal—had been satisfied, the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as an abuse of disciplinary authority that, by social norms, was manifestly unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees engaged in duties involving the handling of personal information must bear in mind that even “mere curiosity” or a “one‑time” unauthorized access may be evaluated as conduct disrupting corporate order and may lead to severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal.
In particular, where information related to one’s own private interests (redevelopment, disputes, issues involving relatives, etc.) is accessed or leaked, the seriousness of the misconduct is significantly aggravated. Under no circumstances should job‑related access authority be abused for private purposes.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, as with collective redundancies, in disciplinary dismissals the burden of proof lies with the employer regarding (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) compliance with procedures, and (iii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline.
Institutions that handle personal information should establish system‑based control mechanisms such as warning pop‑ups, provide training on personal information, and set out clear disciplinary standards in the rules of employment and personnel regulations. This enables them to substantiate, before the Labor Relations Commission, both the “seriousness of the misconduct” and the “propriety of the level of discipline.”
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission shows a tendency to afford broad discretion to disciplinary authorities in cases of misconduct directly affecting public character and trustworthiness, such as unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information. It suggests that both employees and employers need to manage risks in advance with the assistance of experts such as the Labor Relations Commission and Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The worker’s unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information at Workplace No. 1, and unauthorized access to Workplaces Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were recognized as grounds for discipline, while unauthorized access to Workplace No. 5 was not recognized as a ground for discipline due to insufficient proof.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
(1) The Corporation is an entity in which a high degree of public interest is required and which handles large volumes of personal information of workers and employers, making strict control of personal information necessary;
(2) The worker had 12 years of service at the Corporation and held Grade 4, a position and seniority level at which it is difficult to accept that he did not know his misconduct would be problematic, and warning messages appeared constantly upon access;
(3) Even if the leakage following unauthorized access occurred only once, it was related to a redevelopment project in which the worker was participating and was used for his private benefit, so the misconduct appears to be grave;
(4) The worker’s unauthorized leakage led to a summary indictment by the prosecution for violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, which appears to reflect a determination that the conduct was unlawful.
Considering all of the above, the dismissal of the worker was not deemed, by social norms, to be a disposition that had manifestly lost its reasonableness or to constitute an unlawful disposition abusing discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The worker did not contest the disciplinary procedure, and it appears that the employer complied with the personnel regulations by providing an opportunity to explain and granting a right to appeal, so there was no procedural illegality.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The worker’s unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information at Workplace No. 1, and unauthorized access to Workplaces Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were recognized as grounds for discipline, while unauthorized access to Workplace No. 5 was not recognized as a ground for discipline due to insufficient proof.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
(1) The Corporation is an entity in which a high degree of public interest is required and which handles large volumes of personal information of workers and employers, making strict control of personal information necessary;
(2) The worker had 12 years of service at the Corporation and held Grade 4, a position and seniority level at which it is difficult to accept that he did not know his misconduct would be problematic, and warning messages appeared constantly upon access;
(3) Even if the leakage following unauthorized access occurred only once, it was related to a redevelopment project in which the worker was participating and was used for his private benefit, so the misconduct appears to be grave;
(4) The worker’s unauthorized leakage led to a summary indictment by the prosecution for violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, which appears to reflect a determination that the conduct was unlawful.
Considering all of the above, the dismissal of the worker was not deemed, by social norms, to be a disposition that had manifestly lost its reasonableness or to constitute an unlawful disposition abusing discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The worker did not contest the disciplinary procedure, and it appears that the employer complied with the personnel regulations by providing an opportunity to explain and granting a right to appeal, so there was no procedural illegality.
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Fulfilment of Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to follow 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 Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Written Notice Requirement (Advance Dismissal Notice)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information) can be found under “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Access to and Leakage of Personal Information).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9568 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.16 · Result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The worker’s unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information at Workplace No. 1, and unauthorized access to Workplaces Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were recognized as grounds for discipline, while unauthorized access to Workplace No. 5 was not recognized as a ground for discipline due to insufficient proof.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
(1) The Corporation is an entity in which a high degree of public interest is required and which handles large volumes of personal information of workers and employers, making strict control of personal information necessary…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case arose where an employee of a public corporation with a high degree of public character was dismissed for having accessed personal information of several workplaces without authorization and having leaked information from one of those workplaces, and then applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure. It ultimately dismissed the worker’s application for relief.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where a public‑sector employee has accessed personal information of multiple workplaces without authorization and leaked part of that information, does dismissal as a disciplinary measure constitute an unfair dismissal in that the level of discipline is, by social norms, manifestly unreasonable?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer, a public corporation, is an institution that handles large volumes of personal information of workers and employers and therefore requires strict control of such information; that the worker, with 12 years of service at the Corporation and holding Grade 4, was in a position and of seniority such that he could fully recognize the problematic nature of his misconduct, and that warning messages were constantly displayed on the system upon access; that even if the leakage following unauthorized access occurred only once, it was directly connected to the worker’s private interests in a redevelopment project and thus constituted serious misconduct; and that the unauthorized leakage had led to a summary indictment for violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, thereby publicly confirming the illegality of the conduct.
In light of the above, the Commission found that, since the grounds for discipline were established and the requirements under the personnel regulations—such as providing an opportunity to explain and granting a right to appeal—had been satisfied, the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as an abuse of disciplinary authority that, by social norms, was manifestly unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees engaged in duties involving the handling of personal information must bear in mind that even “mere curiosity” or a “one‑time” unauthorized access may be evaluated as conduct disrupting corporate order and may lead to severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal.
In particular, where information related to one’s own private interests (redevelopment, disputes, issues involving relatives, etc.) is accessed or leaked, the seriousness of the misconduct is significantly aggravated. Under no circumstances should job‑related access authority be abused for private purposes.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, as with collective redundancies, in disciplinary dismissals the burden of proof lies with the employer regarding (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) compliance with procedures, and (iii) the appropriateness of the level of discipline.
Institutions that handle personal information should establish system‑based control mechanisms such as warning pop‑ups, provide training on personal information, and set out clear disciplinary standards in the rules of employment and personnel regulations. This enables them to substantiate, before the Labor Relations Commission, both the “seriousness of the misconduct” and the “propriety of the level of discipline.”
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission shows a tendency to afford broad discretion to disciplinary authorities in cases of misconduct directly affecting public character and trustworthiness, such as unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information. It suggests that both employees and employers need to manage risks in advance with the assistance of experts such as the Labor Relations Commission and Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The worker’s unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information at Workplace No. 1, and unauthorized access to Workplaces Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were recognized as grounds for discipline, while unauthorized access to Workplace No. 5 was not recognized as a ground for discipline due to insufficient proof.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
(1) The Corporation is an entity in which a high degree of public interest is required and which handles large volumes of personal information of workers and employers, making strict control of personal information necessary;
(2) The worker had 12 years of service at the Corporation and held Grade 4, a position and seniority level at which it is difficult to accept that he did not know his misconduct would be problematic, and warning messages appeared constantly upon access;
(3) Even if the leakage following unauthorized access occurred only once, it was related to a redevelopment project in which the worker was participating and was used for his private benefit, so the misconduct appears to be grave;
(4) The worker’s unauthorized leakage led to a summary indictment by the prosecution for violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, which appears to reflect a determination that the conduct was unlawful.
Considering all of the above, the dismissal of the worker was not deemed, by social norms, to be a disposition that had manifestly lost its reasonableness or to constitute an unlawful disposition abusing discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The worker did not contest the disciplinary procedure, and it appears that the employer complied with the personnel regulations by providing an opportunity to explain and granting a right to appeal, so there was no procedural illegality.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The worker’s unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information at Workplace No. 1, and unauthorized access to Workplaces Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were recognized as grounds for discipline, while unauthorized access to Workplace No. 5 was not recognized as a ground for discipline due to insufficient proof.
B. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
(1) The Corporation is an entity in which a high degree of public interest is required and which handles large volumes of personal information of workers and employers, making strict control of personal information necessary;
(2) The worker had 12 years of service at the Corporation and held Grade 4, a position and seniority level at which it is difficult to accept that he did not know his misconduct would be problematic, and warning messages appeared constantly upon access;
(3) Even if the leakage following unauthorized access occurred only once, it was related to a redevelopment project in which the worker was participating and was used for his private benefit, so the misconduct appears to be grave;
(4) The worker’s unauthorized leakage led to a summary indictment by the prosecution for violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, which appears to reflect a determination that the conduct was unlawful.
Considering all of the above, the dismissal of the worker was not deemed, by social norms, to be a disposition that had manifestly lost its reasonableness or to constitute an unlawful disposition abusing discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
The worker did not contest the disciplinary procedure, and it appears that the employer complied with the personnel regulations by providing an opportunity to explain and granting a right to appeal, so there was no procedural illegality.
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Fulfilment of Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘No Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to follow 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 Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Written Notice Requirement (Advance Dismissal Notice)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (unauthorized access to and leakage of personal information) can be found under “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Access to and Leakage of Personal Information).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
