Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Disciplinary Severity (Receipt of Congratulatory and Condolence Money)” (Unfair Dismissal 468)
- Date2026/05/21 04:08
- Read 97
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (receipt of congratulatory and condolence money).”
Adjudicating Body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae82 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of notifying persons related to his/her duties of his/her family event and receiving congratulatory and condolence money was merely to inform them of the period during which he/she would be absent due to marriage and honeymoon, and the amount of congratulatory money received did not significantly exceed the customary ceremonial range, making it difficult to view it as consideration in connection with his/her duties. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize this as a ground for discipline. However, the other grounds for discipline constitute violations of the code of ethics, service regulations, etc., and thus fall under the grounds for discipline set forth in the personnel regulations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed for disciplinary reasons based on several instances of misconduct and then filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed whether the dismissal was unfair, whether the level of discipline was appropriate, and whether the disciplinary procedures were observed, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. This decision is a useful precedent for reference in advising on similar cases at Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: “Where multiple acts of misconduct, including the receipt of congratulatory and condolence money, are at issue, whether dismissal can still be justified based solely on the remaining grounds for discipline even if some acts are difficult to recognize as grounds for discipline, and whether the level of discipline and the disciplinary procedures are lawful.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee’s act of notifying persons related to his/her duties of his/her wedding and honeymoon schedule and receiving congratulatory money from them was merely to inform them of the period of absence due to marriage and honeymoon, and that the amount of congratulatory money received did not significantly exceed the customary ceremonial range, making it difficult to recognize any quid pro quo relationship with his/her duties. Therefore, it was difficult to regard this as a ground for discipline.
Nevertheless, the other recognized acts of misconduct constituted violations of the code of ethics, service regulations, workplace bullying prevention and handling guidelines, and personnel regulations, and thus fell under the grounds for discipline stipulated in the personnel regulations. The Commission further held that, in line with the standards presented by the Supreme Court, the level of discipline was within the employer’s discretionary authority and could not be deemed to have clearly lost its validity under social norms, and that the employer had complied with the disciplinary procedures under the personnel regulations, including notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee, provision of an opportunity to explain, convening of a re‑examination disciplinary committee, and written notice of the re‑examination decision. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case could not be considered unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be understood that merely notifying persons related to one’s duties of a family event and receiving congratulatory and condolence money does not automatically constitute grounds for discipline. Only where the amount received significantly exceeds the ordinary ceremonial range and is recognized as consideration for job‑related duties can it be evaluated as serious misconduct.
However, even if the aspect relating to congratulatory and condolence money is not recognized as a ground for discipline, a serious disciplinary measure may still be upheld solely on the basis of other violations, such as breaches of the code of ethics, service regulations, or workplace bullying guidelines. Employees should therefore regularly check their own compliance with internal company rules.
In addition, if notice of the disciplinary grounds and an opportunity to explain have been provided during the disciplinary committee and re‑examination procedures, it is important to actively exercise one’s right of defense in those processes by fully submitting opinions and supporting materials. At the remedy application stage, one should contest not only the existence of the grounds for discipline but also whether the level of discipline is excessive under social norms.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even where multiple instances of misconduct exist, it is advisable to strictly distinguish whether each ground constitutes a ground for discipline and to clearly specify each ground for discipline so that, even if some are not upheld, the appropriateness of the level of discipline can still be assessed based on the remaining grounds alone. Furthermore, by concretely refining internal rules such as the code of ethics, service regulations, and workplace bullying prevention guidelines, and by establishing disciplinary severity standards in advance, employers can positively influence the Labor Relations Commission’s or court’s assessment of whether the exercise of disciplinary discretion is reasonable under social norms.
In terms of disciplinary procedures, employers must faithfully implement the procedures set out in the personnel regulations and collective agreements, including prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee, specific indication of the grounds for discipline, provision of an opportunity for the employee to explain, operation of a re‑examination procedure, and written notice of the outcome. They should also systematically retain minutes, notices, written opinions, and other documents that can prove compliance with these procedures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of notifying persons related to his/her duties of a family event and receiving congratulatory and condolence money was merely to inform them of the period during which he/she would be absent due to marriage and honeymoon, and the amount of congratulatory money received did not significantly exceed the customary ceremonial range, making it difficult to view it as consideration in connection with his/her duties. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize this as a ground for discipline. However, the other grounds for discipline constitute violations of the code of ethics, service regulations, etc., and thus fall under the grounds for discipline set forth in the personnel regulations.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to the grounds for discipline that were recognized, the measures taken were appropriate under the code of ethics, service regulations, workplace bullying prevention and handling guidelines, and personnel regulations, and cannot be regarded as a disposition that has clearly lost its validity under social norms or as an abuse of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
In light of the facts that, in accordance with the personnel regulations, the employee was given prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee with the grounds for discipline specified and was afforded an opportunity to explain, and that, upon the employee’s request for re‑examination, a re‑examination disciplinary committee was convened and the re‑examination result was notified in writing, it appears that the disciplinary procedures were observed, and no other illegality in the disciplinary procedures has been identified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of notifying persons related to his/her duties of a family event and receiving congratulatory and condolence money was merely to inform them of the period during which he/she would be absent due to marriage and honeymoon, and the amount of congratulatory money received did not significantly exceed the customary ceremonial range, making it difficult to view it as consideration in connection with his/her duties. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize this as a ground for discipline. However, the other grounds for discipline constitute violations of the code of ethics, service regulations, etc., and thus fall under the grounds for discipline set forth in the personnel regulations.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to the grounds for discipline that were recognized, the measures taken were appropriate under the code of ethics, service regulations, workplace bullying prevention and handling guidelines, and personnel regulations, and cannot be regarded as a disposition that has clearly lost its validity under social norms or as an abuse of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
In light of the facts that, in accordance with the personnel regulations, the employee was given prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee with the grounds for discipline specified and was afforded an opportunity to explain, and that, upon the employee’s request for re‑examination, a re‑examination disciplinary committee was convened and the re‑examination result was notified in writing, it appears that the disciplinary procedures were observed, and no other illegality in the disciplinary procedures has been identified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiration of Employment Contract Term)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (receipt of congratulatory and condolence money), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work instructions, workplace bullying, 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiration of Employment Contract Term)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (receipt of congratulatory and condolence money) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Receipt of Congratulatory and Condolence Money).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (receipt of congratulatory and condolence money).”
Adjudicating Body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae82 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s act of notifying persons related to his/her duties of his/her family event and receiving congratulatory and condolence money was merely to inform them of the period during which he/she would be absent due to marriage and honeymoon, and the amount of congratulatory money received did not significantly exceed the customary ceremonial range, making it difficult to view it as consideration in connection with his/her duties. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize this as a ground for discipline. However, the other grounds for discipline constitute violations of the code of ethics, service regulations, etc., and thus fall under the grounds for discipline set forth in the personnel regulations.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed for disciplinary reasons based on several instances of misconduct and then filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed whether the dismissal was unfair, whether the level of discipline was appropriate, and whether the disciplinary procedures were observed, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. This decision is a useful precedent for reference in advising on similar cases at Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: “Where multiple acts of misconduct, including the receipt of congratulatory and condolence money, are at issue, whether dismissal can still be justified based solely on the remaining grounds for discipline even if some acts are difficult to recognize as grounds for discipline, and whether the level of discipline and the disciplinary procedures are lawful.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee’s act of notifying persons related to his/her duties of his/her wedding and honeymoon schedule and receiving congratulatory money from them was merely to inform them of the period of absence due to marriage and honeymoon, and that the amount of congratulatory money received did not significantly exceed the customary ceremonial range, making it difficult to recognize any quid pro quo relationship with his/her duties. Therefore, it was difficult to regard this as a ground for discipline.
Nevertheless, the other recognized acts of misconduct constituted violations of the code of ethics, service regulations, workplace bullying prevention and handling guidelines, and personnel regulations, and thus fell under the grounds for discipline stipulated in the personnel regulations. The Commission further held that, in line with the standards presented by the Supreme Court, the level of discipline was within the employer’s discretionary authority and could not be deemed to have clearly lost its validity under social norms, and that the employer had complied with the disciplinary procedures under the personnel regulations, including notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee, provision of an opportunity to explain, convening of a re‑examination disciplinary committee, and written notice of the re‑examination decision. On this basis, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case could not be considered unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be understood that merely notifying persons related to one’s duties of a family event and receiving congratulatory and condolence money does not automatically constitute grounds for discipline. Only where the amount received significantly exceeds the ordinary ceremonial range and is recognized as consideration for job‑related duties can it be evaluated as serious misconduct.
However, even if the aspect relating to congratulatory and condolence money is not recognized as a ground for discipline, a serious disciplinary measure may still be upheld solely on the basis of other violations, such as breaches of the code of ethics, service regulations, or workplace bullying guidelines. Employees should therefore regularly check their own compliance with internal company rules.
In addition, if notice of the disciplinary grounds and an opportunity to explain have been provided during the disciplinary committee and re‑examination procedures, it is important to actively exercise one’s right of defense in those processes by fully submitting opinions and supporting materials. At the remedy application stage, one should contest not only the existence of the grounds for discipline but also whether the level of discipline is excessive under social norms.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even where multiple instances of misconduct exist, it is advisable to strictly distinguish whether each ground constitutes a ground for discipline and to clearly specify each ground for discipline so that, even if some are not upheld, the appropriateness of the level of discipline can still be assessed based on the remaining grounds alone. Furthermore, by concretely refining internal rules such as the code of ethics, service regulations, and workplace bullying prevention guidelines, and by establishing disciplinary severity standards in advance, employers can positively influence the Labor Relations Commission’s or court’s assessment of whether the exercise of disciplinary discretion is reasonable under social norms.
In terms of disciplinary procedures, employers must faithfully implement the procedures set out in the personnel regulations and collective agreements, including prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee, specific indication of the grounds for discipline, provision of an opportunity for the employee to explain, operation of a re‑examination procedure, and written notice of the outcome. They should also systematically retain minutes, notices, written opinions, and other documents that can prove compliance with these procedures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of notifying persons related to his/her duties of a family event and receiving congratulatory and condolence money was merely to inform them of the period during which he/she would be absent due to marriage and honeymoon, and the amount of congratulatory money received did not significantly exceed the customary ceremonial range, making it difficult to view it as consideration in connection with his/her duties. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize this as a ground for discipline. However, the other grounds for discipline constitute violations of the code of ethics, service regulations, etc., and thus fall under the grounds for discipline set forth in the personnel regulations.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to the grounds for discipline that were recognized, the measures taken were appropriate under the code of ethics, service regulations, workplace bullying prevention and handling guidelines, and personnel regulations, and cannot be regarded as a disposition that has clearly lost its validity under social norms or as an abuse of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
In light of the facts that, in accordance with the personnel regulations, the employee was given prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee with the grounds for discipline specified and was afforded an opportunity to explain, and that, upon the employee’s request for re‑examination, a re‑examination disciplinary committee was convened and the re‑examination result was notified in writing, it appears that the disciplinary procedures were observed, and no other illegality in the disciplinary procedures has been identified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
The employee’s act of notifying persons related to his/her duties of a family event and receiving congratulatory and condolence money was merely to inform them of the period during which he/she would be absent due to marriage and honeymoon, and the amount of congratulatory money received did not significantly exceed the customary ceremonial range, making it difficult to view it as consideration in connection with his/her duties. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize this as a ground for discipline. However, the other grounds for discipline constitute violations of the code of ethics, service regulations, etc., and thus fall under the grounds for discipline set forth in the personnel regulations.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to the grounds for discipline that were recognized, the measures taken were appropriate under the code of ethics, service regulations, workplace bullying prevention and handling guidelines, and personnel regulations, and cannot be regarded as a disposition that has clearly lost its validity under social norms or as an abuse of the discretionary authority vested in the disciplinary authority.
C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
In light of the facts that, in accordance with the personnel regulations, the employee was given prior notice of the convening of the disciplinary committee with the grounds for discipline specified and was afforded an opportunity to explain, and that, upon the employee’s request for re‑examination, a re‑examination disciplinary committee was convened and the re‑examination result was notified in writing, it appears that the disciplinary procedures were observed, and no other illegality in the disciplinary procedures has been identified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiration of Employment Contract Term)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (receipt of congratulatory and condolence money), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non‑compliance with work instructions, workplace bullying, 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiration of Employment Contract Term)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (receipt of congratulatory and condolence money) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Receipt of Congratulatory and Condolence Money).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
