Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Disciplinary Severity (Information Leakage by HR & General Affairs Team)” (Unfair Dismissal 141)
- Date2026/01/23 04:14
- Read 255
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of “disciplinary severity (information leakage by HR & General Affairs Team).”
Adjudicating Body: Central Labor Relations Commission
2024Buhae1654 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.30 · Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed: (i) external leakage of important company information, (ii) printing and retaining a specific individual’s personnel record card, (iii) attempted leakage of internal company data to a personal drive, and (iv) various acts of misconduct such as failure to comply with work‑related instructions from a superior and problematic attitude were all recognized as grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an HR & General Affairs team employee was dismissed on the grounds that the employee leaked important company information externally, printed and retained a specific individual’s personnel record card, and attempted to transfer internal data to a personal drive. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The initial Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application for remedy, and although the employee sought re‑examination before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the Central Commission upheld the initial decision and ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where an HR & General Affairs team employee unlawfully obtained and retained internal data such as important company information and personnel records, and refused to comply with the superior’s lawful instructions, the grounds for disciplinary dismissal, the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and the disciplinary procedures were all justified.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the external leakage of important company information, the printing and retention of a specific individual’s personnel record card, the attempted transfer of internal company data to a personal drive, and the various acts of misconduct such as failure to comply with the superior’s instructions and problematic attitude were all objectively established.
It further held that, although the employee belonged to the HR & General Affairs team and was in a position to handle employees’ personal information and internal company information, the employee nonetheless unlawfully obtained and retained such information, which showed a high degree of intent and constituted very serious misconduct. In addition, by disregarding the superior and refusing to follow instructions, the employee seriously disrupted corporate order.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as a disposition that clearly exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretion in exercising disciplinary authority, and that there were responsible grounds making it difficult, in light of social norms, to continue the employment relationship.
The Commission also found no defect in the disciplinary procedure, noting that the email summoning the employee to the disciplinary committee clearly stated the specific grounds for discipline, that the employee appeared before the committee and made explanations, that the employee’s assertion of having orally requested a re‑examination was not credible, and that there was no indication that the rules governing disciplinary procedures had been violated.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
The more an employee is engaged in duties that handle sensitive information—such as HR & general affairs, HR & labor, or accounting—the more the employee must bear in mind that personally printing, saving, or retaining internal data and personal information can in itself constitute serious grounds for disciplinary dismissal. Even where the employee disagrees with a superior’s instructions, repeatedly refusing to comply with lawful orders or displaying an attitude that disregards organizational order can be highly disadvantageous when the level of discipline is determined.
If the employee is given an opportunity to appear before a disciplinary committee and provide explanations, it is more important to prepare a defense by specifically organizing the facts and circumstances than to rely on potential procedural defects. It is advisable to secure objective materials in advance, such as emails, messenger records, and the contents of instructions given before and after the disciplinary action.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to clearly set out rules regarding access to, printing, storage, and removal of important information and personal data for departments that handle such information, such as the HR & General Affairs team, and to specify in detail in the rules of employment and HR regulations the level of discipline applicable to violations.
When considering disciplinary dismissal, employers should carefully determine, in a comprehensive manner, whether the content of the misconduct, the degree of intent, the nature of the duties, and the impact on corporate order are such that, in light of social norms, it is difficult to continue the employment relationship, and whether the level of discipline is not excessive.
In addition, when convening a disciplinary committee, employers should describe the alleged facts of misconduct as concretely as possible in the summons or email, and should substantively provide the employee with an opportunity to appear and explain, thereby ensuring procedural fairness. Doing so makes it easier to defend the validity of the disciplinary action at the Labor Relations Commission or court stage.
This Central Labor Relations Commission decision illustrates that, particularly in positions such as HR & general affairs where trust and security are critical, disciplinary dismissal may be deemed justified in cases of information leakage and non‑compliance with instructions. To prevent unfair dismissal disputes, both employees and employers need to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing grounds for discipline, disciplinary severity, and disciplinary procedures. It is advisable to refine internal rules and procedures in advance with the advice of specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
(i) External leakage of important company information,
(ii) Printing and retention of a specific individual’s personnel record card,
(iii) Attempted transfer of internal company data to a personal drive, and
(iv) Various acts of misconduct such as failure to comply with work‑related instructions from a superior and problematic attitude
were all recognized as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of discipline (disciplinary severity) was appropriate
(i) All grounds for discipline were recognized;
(ii) As a member of the HR & General Affairs team, the employee unlawfully obtained and personally retained all kinds of materials handled in the course of work, including internal company information and employees’ personal data, and the degree of misconduct was very serious and intentional;
(iii) The employee disrupted corporate order by disregarding the superior and refusing to follow instructions.
In light of these factors, the dismissal could not be viewed as an abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
(i) The email summoning the employee to the disciplinary committee clearly stated the specific grounds for discipline;
(ii) The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and provided explanations, so it could not be seen that the employee’s right to defense was restricted;
(iii) The employee’s assertion that a re‑examination was requested orally was difficult to accept, and thus the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
(i) External leakage of important company information,
(ii) Printing and retention of a specific individual’s personnel record card,
(iii) Attempted transfer of internal company data to a personal drive, and
(iv) Various acts of misconduct such as failure to comply with work‑related instructions from a superior and problematic attitude
were all recognized as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of discipline (disciplinary severity) was appropriate
(i) All grounds for discipline were recognized;
(ii) As a member of the HR & General Affairs team, the employee unlawfully obtained and personally retained all kinds of materials handled in the course of work, including internal company information and employees’ personal data, and the degree of misconduct was very serious and intentional;
(iii) The employee disrupted corporate order by disregarding the superior and refusing to follow instructions.
In light of these factors, the dismissal could not be viewed as an abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
(i) The email summoning the employee to the disciplinary committee clearly stated the specific grounds for discipline;
(ii) The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and provided explanations, so it could not be seen that the employee’s right to defense was restricted;
(iii) The employee’s assertion that a re‑examination was requested orally was difficult to accept, and thus the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Benefit of Remedy (Formal Reinstatement Order)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Genuine Order of Reinstatement to Original Position)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (information leakage by HR & General Affairs team), 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Benefit of Remedy (Formal Reinstatement Order)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (information leakage by HR & General Affairs team) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Information Leakage by HR & General Affairs Team).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of “disciplinary severity (information leakage by HR & General Affairs Team).”
Adjudicating Body: Central Labor Relations Commission
2024Buhae1654 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.30 · Result: Initial Decision Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed: (i) external leakage of important company information, (ii) printing and retaining a specific individual’s personnel record card, (iii) attempted leakage of internal company data to a personal drive, and (iv) various acts of misconduct such as failure to comply with work‑related instructions from a superior and problematic attitude were all recognized as grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an HR & General Affairs team employee was dismissed on the grounds that the employee leaked important company information externally, printed and retained a specific individual’s personnel record card, and attempted to transfer internal data to a personal drive. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The initial Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application for remedy, and although the employee sought re‑examination before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the Central Commission upheld the initial decision and ruled in favor of the employer.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where an HR & General Affairs team employee unlawfully obtained and retained internal data such as important company information and personnel records, and refused to comply with the superior’s lawful instructions, the grounds for disciplinary dismissal, the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and the disciplinary procedures were all justified.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the external leakage of important company information, the printing and retention of a specific individual’s personnel record card, the attempted transfer of internal company data to a personal drive, and the various acts of misconduct such as failure to comply with the superior’s instructions and problematic attitude were all objectively established.
It further held that, although the employee belonged to the HR & General Affairs team and was in a position to handle employees’ personal information and internal company information, the employee nonetheless unlawfully obtained and retained such information, which showed a high degree of intent and constituted very serious misconduct. In addition, by disregarding the superior and refusing to follow instructions, the employee seriously disrupted corporate order.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as a disposition that clearly exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretion in exercising disciplinary authority, and that there were responsible grounds making it difficult, in light of social norms, to continue the employment relationship.
The Commission also found no defect in the disciplinary procedure, noting that the email summoning the employee to the disciplinary committee clearly stated the specific grounds for discipline, that the employee appeared before the committee and made explanations, that the employee’s assertion of having orally requested a re‑examination was not credible, and that there was no indication that the rules governing disciplinary procedures had been violated.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
The more an employee is engaged in duties that handle sensitive information—such as HR & general affairs, HR & labor, or accounting—the more the employee must bear in mind that personally printing, saving, or retaining internal data and personal information can in itself constitute serious grounds for disciplinary dismissal. Even where the employee disagrees with a superior’s instructions, repeatedly refusing to comply with lawful orders or displaying an attitude that disregards organizational order can be highly disadvantageous when the level of discipline is determined.
If the employee is given an opportunity to appear before a disciplinary committee and provide explanations, it is more important to prepare a defense by specifically organizing the facts and circumstances than to rely on potential procedural defects. It is advisable to secure objective materials in advance, such as emails, messenger records, and the contents of instructions given before and after the disciplinary action.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to clearly set out rules regarding access to, printing, storage, and removal of important information and personal data for departments that handle such information, such as the HR & General Affairs team, and to specify in detail in the rules of employment and HR regulations the level of discipline applicable to violations.
When considering disciplinary dismissal, employers should carefully determine, in a comprehensive manner, whether the content of the misconduct, the degree of intent, the nature of the duties, and the impact on corporate order are such that, in light of social norms, it is difficult to continue the employment relationship, and whether the level of discipline is not excessive.
In addition, when convening a disciplinary committee, employers should describe the alleged facts of misconduct as concretely as possible in the summons or email, and should substantively provide the employee with an opportunity to appear and explain, thereby ensuring procedural fairness. Doing so makes it easier to defend the validity of the disciplinary action at the Labor Relations Commission or court stage.
This Central Labor Relations Commission decision illustrates that, particularly in positions such as HR & general affairs where trust and security are critical, disciplinary dismissal may be deemed justified in cases of information leakage and non‑compliance with instructions. To prevent unfair dismissal disputes, both employees and employers need to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing grounds for discipline, disciplinary severity, and disciplinary procedures. It is advisable to refine internal rules and procedures in advance with the advice of specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
(i) External leakage of important company information,
(ii) Printing and retention of a specific individual’s personnel record card,
(iii) Attempted transfer of internal company data to a personal drive, and
(iv) Various acts of misconduct such as failure to comply with work‑related instructions from a superior and problematic attitude
were all recognized as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of discipline (disciplinary severity) was appropriate
(i) All grounds for discipline were recognized;
(ii) As a member of the HR & General Affairs team, the employee unlawfully obtained and personally retained all kinds of materials handled in the course of work, including internal company information and employees’ personal data, and the degree of misconduct was very serious and intentional;
(iii) The employee disrupted corporate order by disregarding the superior and refusing to follow instructions.
In light of these factors, the dismissal could not be viewed as an abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
(i) The email summoning the employee to the disciplinary committee clearly stated the specific grounds for discipline;
(ii) The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and provided explanations, so it could not be seen that the employee’s right to defense was restricted;
(iii) The employee’s assertion that a re‑examination was requested orally was difficult to accept, and thus the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
(i) External leakage of important company information,
(ii) Printing and retention of a specific individual’s personnel record card,
(iii) Attempted transfer of internal company data to a personal drive, and
(iv) Various acts of misconduct such as failure to comply with work‑related instructions from a superior and problematic attitude
were all recognized as grounds for discipline.
B. Whether the level of discipline (disciplinary severity) was appropriate
(i) All grounds for discipline were recognized;
(ii) As a member of the HR & General Affairs team, the employee unlawfully obtained and personally retained all kinds of materials handled in the course of work, including internal company information and employees’ personal data, and the degree of misconduct was very serious and intentional;
(iii) The employee disrupted corporate order by disregarding the superior and refusing to follow instructions.
In light of these factors, the dismissal could not be viewed as an abuse of discretionary authority.
C. Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful
(i) The email summoning the employee to the disciplinary committee clearly stated the specific grounds for discipline;
(ii) The employee appeared before the disciplinary committee and provided explanations, so it could not be seen that the employee’s right to defense was restricted;
(iii) The employee’s assertion that a re‑examination was requested orally was difficult to accept, and thus the Commission found no defect in the disciplinary procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Benefit of Remedy (Formal Reinstatement Order)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Extinction of Benefit of Remedy (Genuine Order of Reinstatement to Original Position)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (information leakage by HR & General Affairs team), 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Benefit of Remedy (Formal Reinstatement Order)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (information leakage by HR & General Affairs team) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Information Leakage by HR & General Affairs Team).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
