Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Monetary Demands from Colleagues)” (Unfair Dismissal 144)
- Date2026/01/24 04:15
- Read 235
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (repeated monetary demands from workplace colleagues).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9384 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.29 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee used his/her relational and hierarchical superiority to demand monetary transactions totaling KRW 8.68 million from 20 persons over approximately 10 months, all of whom were workplace colleagues, and 18 of whom were in a lower position than the employee. The misconduct therefore constituted not only a violation of the conflict-of-interest prevention system, but also workplace bullying and a breach of the duty of integrity. In addition, the employee instructed the victims to give false statements and conceal facts, and failed to cooperate with the audit, thereby committing separate misconduct in the form of workplace bullying and obstruction of audit activities, apart from the monetary demands themselves. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that the misconduct was serious and that the disciplinary action of dismissal was not excessive.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who repeatedly requested monetary transactions from colleagues by exploiting superior-subordinate relationships within the workplace was dismissed for cause and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. Labor Law Firm Law& has organized the legal framework applicable to this type of case for reference in responding to unfair dismissal disputes.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether long-term and repeated monetary demands made to multiple persons by exploiting a superior position in the workplace, together with workplace bullying and acts obstructing an internal audit in the course of such demands, constitute grounds for discipline sufficient to justify dismissal, and whether the resulting level of discipline (dismissal) is excessively severe by social standards.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employee demanded monetary transactions totaling KRW 8.68 million from 20 colleagues over approximately 10 months, that 18 of those colleagues were in a lower position and that the employee exploited relational and hierarchical superiority, that such conduct constituted not only a violation of the conflict-of-interest prevention system but also workplace bullying and a breach of the duty of integrity, and that there was additional misconduct in that the employee instructed the victims to give false statements and conceal facts and failed to cooperate with the audit.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the employee’s misconduct had seriously undermined corporate order and made it difficult to restore the relationship of trust with the employer, and that, given the duration and frequency of the misconduct, the scale of the monetary transactions, and the number of victims, it had reached a level at which it was difficult to continue the employment relationship by social standards.
The panel held that, considering the seriousness and repetitive nature of the misconduct and its impact on the organization, the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as a level of discipline that was markedly excessive by social standards, and therefore did not constitute an abuse or overstepping of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline, and was justified.
The panel also found no material defect in the disciplinary procedures, noting that the employee appeared before both the initial and re-hearing disciplinary committees pursuant to the relevant rules and was given an opportunity to present explanations.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee repeatedly borrows or demands money from colleagues by exploiting hierarchical or relational superiority, such conduct is not treated as a mere private monetary transaction between individuals. It may be evaluated as a violation of conflict-of-interest prevention obligations and as workplace bullying, and can justify dismissal.
In particular, secondary misconduct such as forcing victims to make false statements or failing to cooperate with investigations or audits is a factor that makes the level of discipline more severe. It is therefore important to remember that one’s attitude during the investigation stage is also extremely important.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly establish rules on conflict-of-interest prevention, the duty of integrity, and the prohibition of workplace bullying, and to explicitly prohibit monetary demands made by exploiting a superior position.
In the event of a similar incident, the company should specifically organize and document the period, frequency, and amount of the monetary demands, the number and positions of the victims, and whether there were instructions to give false statements during the investigation or audit. This will enable the company to substantiate, before the disciplinary committee, the seriousness of the misconduct and the extent to which corporate order has been undermined.
This precedent confirms once again that, in determining the justification for disciplinary dismissal, the “repetitiveness and continuity” of the misconduct, the “scope of harm and impact on the organization,” and the “attitude during the investigation process” function as core factors in assessing the appropriate level of discipline.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee used his/her relational and hierarchical superiority to demand monetary transactions totaling KRW 8.68 million from 20 persons over approximately 10 months. All of the victims were the employee’s workplace colleagues, and 18 of them were in a lower position than the employee. Accordingly, the misconduct constituted not only a violation of the conflict-of-interest prevention system, but also workplace bullying and a breach of the duty of integrity. In addition, by instructing the victims to give false statements and conceal facts and by failing to cooperate with the audit, the employee committed separate misconduct constituting workplace bullying and obstruction of audit activities, apart from the monetary demands themselves.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The period of the employee’s misconduct was long, the number of victims was large, and the scale of the monetary transactions was not insignificant. The misconduct was therefore extremely serious, and it was determined that the company’s internal order had been considerably undermined. It was thus difficult to regard the level of discipline as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee appeared before both the initial and re-hearing disciplinary committees pursuant to the relevant rules and was given an opportunity to present explanations. There was no other illegality in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee used his/her relational and hierarchical superiority to demand monetary transactions totaling KRW 8.68 million from 20 persons over approximately 10 months. All of the victims were the employee’s workplace colleagues, and 18 of them were in a lower position than the employee. Accordingly, the misconduct constituted not only a violation of the conflict-of-interest prevention system, but also workplace bullying and a breach of the duty of integrity. In addition, by instructing the victims to give false statements and conceal facts and by failing to cooperate with the audit, the employee committed separate misconduct constituting workplace bullying and obstruction of audit activities, apart from the monetary demands themselves.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The period of the employee’s misconduct was long, the number of victims was large, and the scale of the monetary transactions was not insignificant. The misconduct was therefore extremely serious, and it was determined that the company’s internal order had been considerably undermined. It was thus difficult to regard the level of discipline as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee appeared before both the initial and re-hearing disciplinary committees pursuant to the relevant rules and was given an opportunity to present explanations. There was no other illegality in the disciplinary procedures.
/
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Abuse of Discretion (Unpaid Exclusion from Work of Care Worker)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeated monetary demands from workplace colleagues), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Denial of Employee Status (Private Academy Freelance Instructor)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (repeated monetary demands from workplace colleagues) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Monetary Demands from Workplace Colleagues).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (repeated monetary demands from workplace colleagues).”
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9384 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.29 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee used his/her relational and hierarchical superiority to demand monetary transactions totaling KRW 8.68 million from 20 persons over approximately 10 months, all of whom were workplace colleagues, and 18 of whom were in a lower position than the employee. The misconduct therefore constituted not only a violation of the conflict-of-interest prevention system, but also workplace bullying and a breach of the duty of integrity. In addition, the employee instructed the victims to give false statements and conceal facts, and failed to cooperate with the audit, thereby committing separate misconduct in the form of workplace bullying and obstruction of audit activities, apart from the monetary demands themselves. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that the misconduct was serious and that the disciplinary action of dismissal was not excessive.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who repeatedly requested monetary transactions from colleagues by exploiting superior-subordinate relationships within the workplace was dismissed for cause and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. Labor Law Firm Law& has organized the legal framework applicable to this type of case for reference in responding to unfair dismissal disputes.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether long-term and repeated monetary demands made to multiple persons by exploiting a superior position in the workplace, together with workplace bullying and acts obstructing an internal audit in the course of such demands, constitute grounds for discipline sufficient to justify dismissal, and whether the resulting level of discipline (dismissal) is excessively severe by social standards.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The adjudicating panel in this case noted that the employee demanded monetary transactions totaling KRW 8.68 million from 20 colleagues over approximately 10 months, that 18 of those colleagues were in a lower position and that the employee exploited relational and hierarchical superiority, that such conduct constituted not only a violation of the conflict-of-interest prevention system but also workplace bullying and a breach of the duty of integrity, and that there was additional misconduct in that the employee instructed the victims to give false statements and conceal facts and failed to cooperate with the audit.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the employee’s misconduct had seriously undermined corporate order and made it difficult to restore the relationship of trust with the employer, and that, given the duration and frequency of the misconduct, the scale of the monetary transactions, and the number of victims, it had reached a level at which it was difficult to continue the employment relationship by social standards.
The panel held that, considering the seriousness and repetitive nature of the misconduct and its impact on the organization, the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as a level of discipline that was markedly excessive by social standards, and therefore did not constitute an abuse or overstepping of the employer’s discretionary power in imposing discipline, and was justified.
The panel also found no material defect in the disciplinary procedures, noting that the employee appeared before both the initial and re-hearing disciplinary committees pursuant to the relevant rules and was given an opportunity to present explanations.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When an employee repeatedly borrows or demands money from colleagues by exploiting hierarchical or relational superiority, such conduct is not treated as a mere private monetary transaction between individuals. It may be evaluated as a violation of conflict-of-interest prevention obligations and as workplace bullying, and can justify dismissal.
In particular, secondary misconduct such as forcing victims to make false statements or failing to cooperate with investigations or audits is a factor that makes the level of discipline more severe. It is therefore important to remember that one’s attitude during the investigation stage is also extremely important.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly establish rules on conflict-of-interest prevention, the duty of integrity, and the prohibition of workplace bullying, and to explicitly prohibit monetary demands made by exploiting a superior position.
In the event of a similar incident, the company should specifically organize and document the period, frequency, and amount of the monetary demands, the number and positions of the victims, and whether there were instructions to give false statements during the investigation or audit. This will enable the company to substantiate, before the disciplinary committee, the seriousness of the misconduct and the extent to which corporate order has been undermined.
This precedent confirms once again that, in determining the justification for disciplinary dismissal, the “repetitiveness and continuity” of the misconduct, the “scope of harm and impact on the organization,” and the “attitude during the investigation process” function as core factors in assessing the appropriate level of discipline.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee used his/her relational and hierarchical superiority to demand monetary transactions totaling KRW 8.68 million from 20 persons over approximately 10 months. All of the victims were the employee’s workplace colleagues, and 18 of them were in a lower position than the employee. Accordingly, the misconduct constituted not only a violation of the conflict-of-interest prevention system, but also workplace bullying and a breach of the duty of integrity. In addition, by instructing the victims to give false statements and conceal facts and by failing to cooperate with the audit, the employee committed separate misconduct constituting workplace bullying and obstruction of audit activities, apart from the monetary demands themselves.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The period of the employee’s misconduct was long, the number of victims was large, and the scale of the monetary transactions was not insignificant. The misconduct was therefore extremely serious, and it was determined that the company’s internal order had been considerably undermined. It was thus difficult to regard the level of discipline as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee appeared before both the initial and re-hearing disciplinary committees pursuant to the relevant rules and was given an opportunity to present explanations. There was no other illegality in the disciplinary procedures.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee used his/her relational and hierarchical superiority to demand monetary transactions totaling KRW 8.68 million from 20 persons over approximately 10 months. All of the victims were the employee’s workplace colleagues, and 18 of them were in a lower position than the employee. Accordingly, the misconduct constituted not only a violation of the conflict-of-interest prevention system, but also workplace bullying and a breach of the duty of integrity. In addition, by instructing the victims to give false statements and conceal facts and by failing to cooperate with the audit, the employee committed separate misconduct constituting workplace bullying and obstruction of audit activities, apart from the monetary demands themselves.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The period of the employee’s misconduct was long, the number of victims was large, and the scale of the monetary transactions was not insignificant. The misconduct was therefore extremely serious, and it was determined that the company’s internal order had been considerably undermined. It was thus difficult to regard the level of discipline as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
The employee appeared before both the initial and re-hearing disciplinary committees pursuant to the relevant rules and was given an opportunity to present explanations. There was no other illegality in the disciplinary procedures.
/
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Abuse of Discretion (Unpaid Exclusion from Work of Care Worker)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (repeated monetary demands from workplace colleagues), disciplinary dismissal, workplace bullying, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Denial of Employee Status (Private Academy Freelance Instructor)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (repeated monetary demands from workplace colleagues) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Severity (Repeated Monetary Demands from Workplace Colleagues).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
