Corporate trends / Performance record
Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Inadequate Verification of Previously Incurred Costs · Omission of Approval for Cash Withdrawal)” (Unfair Dismissal 101)
- Date2026/01/13 04:04
- Read 228
[Case Information]
- Case Title: Case precedent on unfair dismissal relating to “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Inadequate Verification of Previously Incurred Costs · Omission of Approval for Cash Withdrawal)”
- Case Number: Partially upheld
- Adjudicating Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae2955 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.18
- Date of Decision:
- Summary of Outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: As to Employee 1, most of the grounds for discipline were acknowledged, including inadequate verification of previously incurred costs, execution of improper expenses, conclusion of service contracts with unclear justification, and omission of approval for cash withdrawal. As to Employee 2, only inadequate verification of previously incurred costs and execution of improper expenses were acknowledged as grounds for discipline, and as to Employee 3, only omission of approval for cash withdrawal was acknowledged as a ground for discipline…
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission acknowledged a substantial portion of the grounds for discipline, yet only partially upheld the employees’ application, focusing on whether the level of discipline (dismissal) was excessively severe. This is a type of case that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice. It is an important precedent in that, where identical disciplinary action (dismissal) is imposed on multiple employees, the Commission’s decision may differ for each employee depending on the scope of the misconduct recognized and the extent to which the resulting loss is attributable to each of them.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on three employees on the grounds of misconduct in the processes of verifying project-related costs, concluding service contracts, and withdrawing funds. The employees filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and any defects in the disciplinary procedure, ultimately recognizing unfair dismissal only in part.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where multiple employees have been dismissed on the same grounds, whether, in light of the scope of the grounds for discipline recognized for each employee, the extent to which the loss is attributable to each of them, and consistency with past similar cases, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is so excessively severe by social standards as to constitute unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case held that, with respect to Employee 1, most of the grounds for discipline were established, including inadequate verification of previously incurred costs, execution of improper expenses, conclusion of service contracts with unclear justification, and omission of approval for cash withdrawal. Given the seriousness of this misconduct, the degree of responsibility for the loss, and the fact that multiple acts of misconduct were committed on a broad scale over a considerable period of time, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the level of discipline in the form of dismissal exceeded the employer’s discretionary authority.
By contrast, with respect to Employee 2 and Employee 3, the panel found that: (i) only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) a substantial portion of the established grounds for discipline appeared to be mistakes or errors made in the course of performing their duties; (iii) the losses arising from their conduct did not directly accrue to them as personal gain; and (iv) in past similar cases, disciplinary measures resulting in dismissal were limited to only some instances. Taking all of these factors into account, the panel held that dismissal was excessively severe by social standards and amounted to an abuse of discretion.
The panel also found no procedural defect in the disciplinary process, in that the employer notified the employees of the convening of the personnel committee and sent them written notices of dismissal. At the same time, it reaffirmed the general legal principle that, even where the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure are acknowledged, an excessively severe level of discipline will still render the dismissal unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even where some grounds for discipline are acknowledged, it is important to recognize that there remains room to contest whether dismissal is excessively severe in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, the motive, whether the loss accrued to the employee as personal gain, and past disciplinary practices. In particular, where multiple acts of misconduct are alleged together, it is crucial to break down the facts item by item and distinguish between the “realm of mistake/error” and the “realm of serious misconduct” in terms of evidence and argument.
It is also important to obtain materials showing what disciplinary measures the company has imposed in past similar cases for the same or similar conduct, and to argue violation of the principle of fairness and excessive severity in the level of discipline. Doing so can lead to substantive mitigation or partial upholding of the application in the unfair dismissal remedy procedure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, when deciding on disciplinary dismissal, it is first necessary to confirm whether the grounds for discipline fall within the grounds for dismissal stipulated in the rules of employment or collective agreement, and second, to secure sufficient objective evidence to prove that there is just cause. Furthermore, at the stage of determining the level of discipline, the company should comprehensively consider, for each employee, the scope of the misconduct, responsibility for the loss, whether any personal gain accrued to the employee, the level of discipline in past similar cases, and whether the damage has been remedied, so as to ensure proportionality and fairness and avoid imposing a level of discipline that is markedly excessive by social standards.
In addition, the company must strictly comply with the disciplinary procedures, including notice of the convening of the personnel committee, providing an opportunity to attend, and specifying the grounds for dismissal and the legal basis therefor. In particular, when disciplining multiple employees at the same time, the company should be mindful that, if it uniformly chooses dismissal without examining differentiated levels of discipline for each individual case, there is a significant risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find some of the dismissals to be unfair.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As to Employee 1, most of the grounds for discipline were acknowledged, including inadequate verification of previously incurred costs, execution of improper expenses, conclusion of service contracts with unclear justification, and omission of approval for cash withdrawal. As to Employee 2, only inadequate verification of previously incurred costs and execution of improper expenses were acknowledged as grounds for discipline, and as to Employee 3, only omission of approval for cash withdrawal was acknowledged as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
As to Employee 1, in light of the seriousness of the misconduct, the degree of responsibility for the loss, and the fact that multiple acts of misconduct were committed on a broad scale over a considerable period of time, the level of discipline was deemed appropriate. However, as to Employee 2 and Employee 3, taking into comprehensive consideration that: (i) only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) among the established grounds for discipline, some appeared to be mistakes or errors made in the course of performing their duties; (iii) the losses arising from the conduct of Employee 2 and Employee 3 did not directly accrue to them as personal gain; and (iv) in past similar cases, disciplinary measures resulting in dismissal were limited to only some instances, the level of discipline was deemed excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Since the employer notified the employees of the convening of the personnel committee and sent them written notices of dismissal, there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As to Employee 1, most of the grounds for discipline were acknowledged, including inadequate verification of previously incurred costs, execution of improper expenses, conclusion of service contracts with unclear justification, and omission of approval for cash withdrawal. As to Employee 2, only inadequate verification of previously incurred costs and execution of improper expenses were acknowledged as grounds for discipline, and as to Employee 3, only omission of approval for cash withdrawal was acknowledged as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
As to Employee 1, in light of the seriousness of the misconduct, the degree of responsibility for the loss, and the fact that multiple acts of misconduct were committed on a broad scale over a considerable period of time, the level of discipline was deemed appropriate. However, as to Employee 2 and Employee 3, taking into comprehensive consideration that: (i) only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) among the established grounds for discipline, some appeared to be mistakes or errors made in the course of performing their duties; (iii) the losses arising from the conduct of Employee 2 and Employee 3 did not directly accrue to them as personal gain; and (iv) in past similar cases, disciplinary measures resulting in dismissal were limited to only some instances, the level of discipline was deemed excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Since the employer notified the employees of the convening of the personnel committee and sent them written notices of dismissal, there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial decision upheld
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Excessive disciplinary severity (Inadequate verification of previously incurred costs · Omission of approval for cash withdrawal), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Case Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Refusal of Regular Employment (Failure to Reach 60 Points in Probationary Evaluation)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of case precedents relating to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Inadequate Verification of Previously Incurred Costs · Omission of Approval for Cash Withdrawal) can be viewed together in the “List of Case Precedents Relating to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Inadequate Verification of Previously Incurred Costs · Omission of Approval for Cash Withdrawal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case Title: Case precedent on unfair dismissal relating to “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Inadequate Verification of Previously Incurred Costs · Omission of Approval for Cash Withdrawal)”
- Case Number: Partially upheld
- Adjudicating Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae2955 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.18
- Date of Decision:
- Summary of Outcome:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: As to Employee 1, most of the grounds for discipline were acknowledged, including inadequate verification of previously incurred costs, execution of improper expenses, conclusion of service contracts with unclear justification, and omission of approval for cash withdrawal. As to Employee 2, only inadequate verification of previously incurred costs and execution of improper expenses were acknowledged as grounds for discipline, and as to Employee 3, only omission of approval for cash withdrawal was acknowledged as a ground for discipline…
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission acknowledged a substantial portion of the grounds for discipline, yet only partially upheld the employees’ application, focusing on whether the level of discipline (dismissal) was excessively severe. This is a type of case that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice. It is an important precedent in that, where identical disciplinary action (dismissal) is imposed on multiple employees, the Commission’s decision may differ for each employee depending on the scope of the misconduct recognized and the extent to which the resulting loss is attributable to each of them.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on three employees on the grounds of misconduct in the processes of verifying project-related costs, concluding service contracts, and withdrawing funds. The employees filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and any defects in the disciplinary procedure, ultimately recognizing unfair dismissal only in part.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where multiple employees have been dismissed on the same grounds, whether, in light of the scope of the grounds for discipline recognized for each employee, the extent to which the loss is attributable to each of them, and consistency with past similar cases, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal is so excessively severe by social standards as to constitute unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case held that, with respect to Employee 1, most of the grounds for discipline were established, including inadequate verification of previously incurred costs, execution of improper expenses, conclusion of service contracts with unclear justification, and omission of approval for cash withdrawal. Given the seriousness of this misconduct, the degree of responsibility for the loss, and the fact that multiple acts of misconduct were committed on a broad scale over a considerable period of time, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the level of discipline in the form of dismissal exceeded the employer’s discretionary authority.
By contrast, with respect to Employee 2 and Employee 3, the panel found that: (i) only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) a substantial portion of the established grounds for discipline appeared to be mistakes or errors made in the course of performing their duties; (iii) the losses arising from their conduct did not directly accrue to them as personal gain; and (iv) in past similar cases, disciplinary measures resulting in dismissal were limited to only some instances. Taking all of these factors into account, the panel held that dismissal was excessively severe by social standards and amounted to an abuse of discretion.
The panel also found no procedural defect in the disciplinary process, in that the employer notified the employees of the convening of the personnel committee and sent them written notices of dismissal. At the same time, it reaffirmed the general legal principle that, even where the existence of grounds for discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure are acknowledged, an excessively severe level of discipline will still render the dismissal unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, even where some grounds for discipline are acknowledged, it is important to recognize that there remains room to contest whether dismissal is excessively severe in light of the nature and degree of the misconduct, the motive, whether the loss accrued to the employee as personal gain, and past disciplinary practices. In particular, where multiple acts of misconduct are alleged together, it is crucial to break down the facts item by item and distinguish between the “realm of mistake/error” and the “realm of serious misconduct” in terms of evidence and argument.
It is also important to obtain materials showing what disciplinary measures the company has imposed in past similar cases for the same or similar conduct, and to argue violation of the principle of fairness and excessive severity in the level of discipline. Doing so can lead to substantive mitigation or partial upholding of the application in the unfair dismissal remedy procedure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, when deciding on disciplinary dismissal, it is first necessary to confirm whether the grounds for discipline fall within the grounds for dismissal stipulated in the rules of employment or collective agreement, and second, to secure sufficient objective evidence to prove that there is just cause. Furthermore, at the stage of determining the level of discipline, the company should comprehensively consider, for each employee, the scope of the misconduct, responsibility for the loss, whether any personal gain accrued to the employee, the level of discipline in past similar cases, and whether the damage has been remedied, so as to ensure proportionality and fairness and avoid imposing a level of discipline that is markedly excessive by social standards.
In addition, the company must strictly comply with the disciplinary procedures, including notice of the convening of the personnel committee, providing an opportunity to attend, and specifying the grounds for dismissal and the legal basis therefor. In particular, when disciplining multiple employees at the same time, the company should be mindful that, if it uniformly chooses dismissal without examining differentiated levels of discipline for each individual case, there is a significant risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find some of the dismissals to be unfair.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As to Employee 1, most of the grounds for discipline were acknowledged, including inadequate verification of previously incurred costs, execution of improper expenses, conclusion of service contracts with unclear justification, and omission of approval for cash withdrawal. As to Employee 2, only inadequate verification of previously incurred costs and execution of improper expenses were acknowledged as grounds for discipline, and as to Employee 3, only omission of approval for cash withdrawal was acknowledged as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
As to Employee 1, in light of the seriousness of the misconduct, the degree of responsibility for the loss, and the fact that multiple acts of misconduct were committed on a broad scale over a considerable period of time, the level of discipline was deemed appropriate. However, as to Employee 2 and Employee 3, taking into comprehensive consideration that: (i) only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) among the established grounds for discipline, some appeared to be mistakes or errors made in the course of performing their duties; (iii) the losses arising from the conduct of Employee 2 and Employee 3 did not directly accrue to them as personal gain; and (iv) in past similar cases, disciplinary measures resulting in dismissal were limited to only some instances, the level of discipline was deemed excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Since the employer notified the employees of the convening of the personnel committee and sent them written notices of dismissal, there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
As to Employee 1, most of the grounds for discipline were acknowledged, including inadequate verification of previously incurred costs, execution of improper expenses, conclusion of service contracts with unclear justification, and omission of approval for cash withdrawal. As to Employee 2, only inadequate verification of previously incurred costs and execution of improper expenses were acknowledged as grounds for discipline, and as to Employee 3, only omission of approval for cash withdrawal was acknowledged as a ground for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
As to Employee 1, in light of the seriousness of the misconduct, the degree of responsibility for the loss, and the fact that multiple acts of misconduct were committed on a broad scale over a considerable period of time, the level of discipline was deemed appropriate. However, as to Employee 2 and Employee 3, taking into comprehensive consideration that: (i) only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were established; (ii) among the established grounds for discipline, some appeared to be mistakes or errors made in the course of performing their duties; (iii) the losses arising from the conduct of Employee 2 and Employee 3 did not directly accrue to them as personal gain; and (iv) in past similar cases, disciplinary measures resulting in dismissal were limited to only some instances, the level of discipline was deemed excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
Since the employer notified the employees of the convening of the personnel committee and sent them written notices of dismissal, there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Initial decision upheld
- “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, Excessive disciplinary severity (Inadequate verification of previously incurred costs · Omission of approval for cash withdrawal), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Case Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Refusal of Regular Employment (Failure to Reach 60 Points in Probationary Evaluation)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of case precedents relating to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Inadequate Verification of Previously Incurred Costs · Omission of Approval for Cash Withdrawal) can be viewed together in the “List of Case Precedents Relating to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Inadequate Verification of Previously Incurred Costs · Omission of Approval for Cash Withdrawal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
