Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Curing Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Resignation Letter · Double Jeopardy)” (Unfair Dismissal 475)
- Date2026/05/23 04:12
- Read 87
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “curing defects in disciplinary procedures (resignation letter · double jeopardy).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae83 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employment relationship was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action
Since the employer did not accept the resignation letters submitted by the employees, the employment relationship between the parties was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action.
B. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ Ground for Discipline 1 differed from the grounds for the first disciplinary action (suspension from duty), and therefore did not constitute double jeopardy; all other grounds for discipline (Ground for Discipline 2) were also recognized.
C. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
All grounds for discipline were recognized and were serious, so the level of discipline was not excessive.
D. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
Even if there were some defects in the disciplinary procedure, the employees attended the Personnel Committee and were given an opportunity to explain, so the procedural defects were deemed cured.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee submitted a resignation letter and was subsequently dismissed following disciplinary procedures, the employee claimed unfair dismissal and applied for relief to the Labor Relations Commission.
The Commission focused on: (i) whether the employment contract was still in force at the time of the disciplinary action; (ii) the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline and the level of disciplinary sanction; and (iii) whether defects in the disciplinary procedure could be cured. It ultimately accepted the employer’s arguments and dismissed the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were whether: (i) a disciplinary dismissal imposed while a resignation letter had been submitted was still premised on a valid employment contract; (ii) the grounds for discipline differed from prior disciplinary grounds such that the action did not constitute double jeopardy; and (iii) even if there were some defects in the disciplinary procedure, those defects were cured by the employee’s attendance at the Personnel Committee and opportunity to explain, so that the dismissal did not amount to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel took into account that the employer had not accepted the resignation letter submitted by the employee; that Ground for Discipline 1 differed from the grounds for the prior suspension and therefore did not constitute double jeopardy; that all other grounds for discipline (Ground for Discipline 2) were also recognized; that, in light of the nature and seriousness of the grounds for discipline, the level of disciplinary sanction could not be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards; and that, although there were some defects in the disciplinary procedure, those defects were cured because the employees attended the Personnel Committee and were given a sufficient opportunity to explain.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case did not suffer from any serious or fundamental illegality in terms of the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of disciplinary sanction, or the disciplinary procedure, and that the employer had satisfied its burden of proof to show just cause. The dismissal was therefore found not to constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should note that, even if they submit a resignation letter, the employment contract continues to exist and they may still be subject to disciplinary procedures unless and until the employer clearly accepts the resignation.
In addition, even if an employee has previously been disciplined (e.g., suspension), if a separate subsequent act of misconduct occurs, the employee may again be subject to discipline. One should not assume that “because I was disciplined once before, the same type of discipline cannot be imposed again.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to secure the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal, it is necessary to prepare concrete evidence showing that: (i) the grounds for discipline fall within the disciplinary grounds set out in the rules of employment, collective agreement, etc.; and (ii) the grounds are so serious that, by social standards, it is difficult to maintain the employment relationship.
In the disciplinary procedure, the employer should comply with the prescribed procedures, such as prior notice, providing an opportunity to attend, and an opportunity to explain. At the same time, even if some defects in notice or procedure occur, those defects may be cured if the employee attends the Personnel Committee and provides an explanation without objection. Employers should therefore carefully keep minutes, attendance records, and the contents of the employee’s explanation.
This decision is a useful example of how, in unfair dismissal disputes, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examines: (i) whether the employment contract was still in force; (ii) whether the case constitutes double jeopardy; (iii) the scope of discretion in setting the level of disciplinary sanction; and (iv) the possibility of curing defects in the disciplinary procedure. In similar cases, it is advisable for both employees and employers to consult with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to thoroughly organize the facts and legal issues.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employment relationship of the employees was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action
Since the employer did not accept the resignation letters submitted by the employees, the employment relationship between the parties was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action.
B. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ Ground for Discipline 1 differed from the grounds for the first disciplinary action (suspension from duty), and therefore did not constitute double jeopardy; all other grounds for discipline (Ground for Discipline 2) were also recognized.
C. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
All grounds for discipline were recognized, and those grounds were serious, so the level of discipline was not excessive.
D. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
Even if there were some defects in the disciplinary procedure, the employees attended the Personnel Committee and were given an opportunity to explain, so the procedural defects were deemed cured.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employment relationship of the employees was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action
Since the employer did not accept the resignation letters submitted by the employees, the employment relationship between the parties was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action.
B. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ Ground for Discipline 1 differed from the grounds for the first disciplinary action (suspension from duty), and therefore did not constitute double jeopardy; all other grounds for discipline (Ground for Discipline 2) were also recognized.
C. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
All grounds for discipline were recognized, and those grounds were serious, so the level of discipline was not excessive.
D. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
Even if there were some defects in the disciplinary procedure, the employees attended the Personnel Committee and were given an opportunity to explain, so the procedural defects were deemed cured.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal of Fixed-Term Contract (Security · Cleaning Service Provider)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Transfer · Removal from Position (Dissolution of K-POP Dance TF)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, curing defects in disciplinary procedures (resignation letter · double jeopardy), disciplinary dismissal (overall disciplinary actions), violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, 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 of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Transfer · Removal from Position (Dissolution of K-POP Dance TF)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to curing defects in disciplinary procedures (resignation letter · double jeopardy) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Curing Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Resignation Letter · Double Jeopardy).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “curing defects in disciplinary procedures (resignation letter · double jeopardy).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae83 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.20 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employment relationship was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action
Since the employer did not accept the resignation letters submitted by the employees, the employment relationship between the parties was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action.
B. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ Ground for Discipline 1 differed from the grounds for the first disciplinary action (suspension from duty), and therefore did not constitute double jeopardy; all other grounds for discipline (Ground for Discipline 2) were also recognized.
C. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
All grounds for discipline were recognized and were serious, so the level of discipline was not excessive.
D. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
Even if there were some defects in the disciplinary procedure, the employees attended the Personnel Committee and were given an opportunity to explain, so the procedural defects were deemed cured.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after the employee submitted a resignation letter and was subsequently dismissed following disciplinary procedures, the employee claimed unfair dismissal and applied for relief to the Labor Relations Commission.
The Commission focused on: (i) whether the employment contract was still in force at the time of the disciplinary action; (ii) the legitimacy of the grounds for discipline and the level of disciplinary sanction; and (iii) whether defects in the disciplinary procedure could be cured. It ultimately accepted the employer’s arguments and dismissed the employee’s application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were whether: (i) a disciplinary dismissal imposed while a resignation letter had been submitted was still premised on a valid employment contract; (ii) the grounds for discipline differed from prior disciplinary grounds such that the action did not constitute double jeopardy; and (iii) even if there were some defects in the disciplinary procedure, those defects were cured by the employee’s attendance at the Personnel Committee and opportunity to explain, so that the dismissal did not amount to unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel took into account that the employer had not accepted the resignation letter submitted by the employee; that Ground for Discipline 1 differed from the grounds for the prior suspension and therefore did not constitute double jeopardy; that all other grounds for discipline (Ground for Discipline 2) were also recognized; that, in light of the nature and seriousness of the grounds for discipline, the level of disciplinary sanction could not be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards; and that, although there were some defects in the disciplinary procedure, those defects were cured because the employees attended the Personnel Committee and were given a sufficient opportunity to explain.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case did not suffer from any serious or fundamental illegality in terms of the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of disciplinary sanction, or the disciplinary procedure, and that the employer had satisfied its burden of proof to show just cause. The dismissal was therefore found not to constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should note that, even if they submit a resignation letter, the employment contract continues to exist and they may still be subject to disciplinary procedures unless and until the employer clearly accepts the resignation.
In addition, even if an employee has previously been disciplined (e.g., suspension), if a separate subsequent act of misconduct occurs, the employee may again be subject to discipline. One should not assume that “because I was disciplined once before, the same type of discipline cannot be imposed again.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, to secure the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal, it is necessary to prepare concrete evidence showing that: (i) the grounds for discipline fall within the disciplinary grounds set out in the rules of employment, collective agreement, etc.; and (ii) the grounds are so serious that, by social standards, it is difficult to maintain the employment relationship.
In the disciplinary procedure, the employer should comply with the prescribed procedures, such as prior notice, providing an opportunity to attend, and an opportunity to explain. At the same time, even if some defects in notice or procedure occur, those defects may be cured if the employee attends the Personnel Committee and provides an explanation without objection. Employers should therefore carefully keep minutes, attendance records, and the contents of the employee’s explanation.
This decision is a useful example of how, in unfair dismissal disputes, the Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examines: (i) whether the employment contract was still in force; (ii) whether the case constitutes double jeopardy; (iii) the scope of discretion in setting the level of disciplinary sanction; and (iv) the possibility of curing defects in the disciplinary procedure. In similar cases, it is advisable for both employees and employers to consult with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to thoroughly organize the facts and legal issues.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employment relationship of the employees was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action
Since the employer did not accept the resignation letters submitted by the employees, the employment relationship between the parties was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action.
B. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ Ground for Discipline 1 differed from the grounds for the first disciplinary action (suspension from duty), and therefore did not constitute double jeopardy; all other grounds for discipline (Ground for Discipline 2) were also recognized.
C. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
All grounds for discipline were recognized, and those grounds were serious, so the level of discipline was not excessive.
D. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
Even if there were some defects in the disciplinary procedure, the employees attended the Personnel Committee and were given an opportunity to explain, so the procedural defects were deemed cured.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employment relationship of the employees was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action
Since the employer did not accept the resignation letters submitted by the employees, the employment relationship between the parties was maintained at the time of the disciplinary action.
B. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employees’ Ground for Discipline 1 differed from the grounds for the first disciplinary action (suspension from duty), and therefore did not constitute double jeopardy; all other grounds for discipline (Ground for Discipline 2) were also recognized.
C. Whether the level of discipline was appropriate
All grounds for discipline were recognized, and those grounds were serious, so the level of discipline was not excessive.
D. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
Even if there were some defects in the disciplinary procedure, the employees attended the Personnel Committee and were given an opportunity to explain, so the procedural defects were deemed cured.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal of Fixed-Term Contract (Security · Cleaning Service Provider)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Transfer · Removal from Position (Dissolution of K-POP Dance TF)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, curing defects in disciplinary procedures (resignation letter · double jeopardy), disciplinary dismissal (overall disciplinary actions), violation of company policy · non-compliance with work orders, 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 of the “Unfair Dismissal Decision” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Transfer · Removal from Position (Dissolution of K-POP Dance TF)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to curing defects in disciplinary procedures (resignation letter · double jeopardy) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Curing Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Resignation Letter · Double Jeopardy).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
