Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Disciplinary Dismissal (Virtual Account · Fabrication of Supporting Documents)” (Unfair Dismissal 178)
- Date2026/02/05 04:05
- Read 233
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which, on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal (virtual account · fabrication of supporting documents),” the Labor Relations Commission ultimately ruled in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application).
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9178 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee submitted internal payment requests asking that advertising expenses be prepaid into a virtual account designated by the employee, thereby causing the employer to transfer funds over a period of several years. As a result, the employer could not access the account and was unable to verify the details of the advertising expenditures. In the course of requesting prepayment of advertising expenses, the employee fabricated supporting documents by altering existing plans, and, despite knowing that a former employee could still access the company’s account on an online platform, took no action, thereby exposing the company to significant risk. ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a situation where the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee for, among other things, submitting internal requests for prepayment of advertising expenses into the employee’s own virtual account and manipulating supporting documents in that process. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application for remedy, ruling in favor of the employer. This article summarizes the implications from the practical perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, focusing on the reasoning structure of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is “whether disciplinary dismissal is socially acceptable where the employee, while asserting that he acted under instructions from a superior, used a virtual account over several years, manipulated supporting documents for advertising expenses, and neglected the management of an account held by a former employee, and whether the failure to guarantee assistance of counsel in the disciplinary procedure constitutes a procedural defect.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that: the employer had, over a period of several years, transferred advertising expenses into a virtual account designated by the employee; as a result, the company could not directly access the account and was unable to verify the details of the advertising expenditures; the employee fabricated supporting documents by altering existing plans when requesting prepayment of advertising expenses; and, despite knowing that a former employee could still access the company’s account on an online platform, the employee took no action, thereby exposing the company to substantial risk.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that all grounds for discipline existed with respect to the employee.
Furthermore, even if there were instructions from a superior, the panel held that the employee could have recognized, by exercising even a minimum level of care, that the execution of advertising expenses was highly inappropriate. Nevertheless, the employee actively fabricated supporting documents so that company funds would continue to be transferred repeatedly and over a long period. Considering the number and duration of the misconduct and the risks posed to the company’s finances and credit, the panel found it difficult to regard the level of discipline as manifestly excessive by social standards.
With respect to the disciplinary procedure, the panel noted that the constitutional right to assistance of counsel is a right in criminal proceedings intended to safeguard personal liberty and is not readily applicable as such to disciplinary procedures between private parties. Unless rules of employment, collective agreements, or similar instruments stipulate assistance of counsel as a mandatory procedure, it is difficult to deny procedural fairness solely on the ground that such assistance was not guaranteed. As there were no other circumstances indicating a loss of procedural fairness, the panel concluded that there was no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even when acting under instructions from a superior, employees must exercise at least a minimum level of reasonable doubt and verification in relation to the execution of company funds. In particular, the use of virtual accounts and the alteration or manipulation of supporting documents can at any time constitute grounds for disciplinary dismissal and should be treated with great caution. In addition, negligence such as poor management of former employees’ accounts or failure to revoke access rights—i.e., risks created by “leaving things unattended”—can also constitute grounds for discipline. It is therefore important to be familiar with and comply with internal rules on information security and account management. Since it is difficult to challenge an unfair dismissal solely on the basis that participation of counsel was not guaranteed in the disciplinary procedure, the key in actual remedy proceedings is to systematically prepare facts and evidence concerning the existence of grounds for discipline and the excessiveness of the level of discipline.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to minimize structures in which company funds such as advertising expenses are transferred to external accounts or virtual accounts. Where unavoidable, clear internal controls should be established, such as requiring accounts in the company’s name, dual approvals, and regular audits. When considering disciplinary dismissal, employers should carefully examine whether the conduct falls within the grounds for discipline and dismissal under the rules of employment and collective agreements, and, taking into account the duration, frequency, and amount of the misconduct and its impact on corporate order, determine whether it has reached a level at which “continuation of the employment relationship is difficult by social standards.” In addition, it is advisable to document at least the basic disciplinary procedures—such as convening the disciplinary committee, providing opportunities to attend and present explanations, and the decision-making process—in order to reduce the burden of proof regarding procedural fairness in future proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission.
This type of precedent clearly illustrates how grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and procedures are evaluated in disputes over unfair dismissal. To prepare for similar cases, it is useful to understand in advance the tendencies of the Labor Relations Commission’s decisions. Employees considering whether to file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, as well as HR and labor-management personnel, should fully review the facts and legal issues in consultation with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee submitted internal requests for prepayment of advertising expenses into a virtual account designated by the employee, thereby causing the employer to transfer funds over a period of several years. As a result, the employer could not access the account and was unable to verify the details of the advertising expenditures. In the course of requesting prepayment of advertising expenses, the employee fabricated supporting documents by altering existing plans. In addition, despite knowing that a former employee could still access the company’s account on an online platform, the employee took no action, thereby exposing the company to significant risk. Accordingly, the panel held that all grounds for discipline existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Even if the employee acted under instructions from a superior, the employee could have recognized, by exercising even a minimum level of care, that the advertising expenses were being executed in a highly inappropriate manner. Nevertheless, the employee actively fabricated supporting documents so that company funds would be transferred. As these acts were committed repeatedly over a long period and are highly blameworthy, the panel found it difficult to regard the level of discipline as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
The constitutional right to assistance of counsel is intended to safeguard personal liberty and therefore is not readily applicable to disciplinary procedures between private parties. There were no circumstances indicating that procedural fairness had been lost.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee submitted internal requests for prepayment of advertising expenses into a virtual account designated by the employee, thereby causing the employer to transfer funds over a period of several years. As a result, the employer could not access the account and was unable to verify the details of the advertising expenditures. In the course of requesting prepayment of advertising expenses, the employee fabricated supporting documents by altering existing plans. In addition, despite knowing that a former employee could still access the company’s account on an online platform, the employee took no action, thereby exposing the company to significant risk. Accordingly, the panel held that all grounds for discipline existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Even if the employee acted under instructions from a superior, the employee could have recognized, by exercising even a minimum level of care, that the advertising expenses were being executed in a highly inappropriate manner. Nevertheless, the employee actively fabricated supporting documents so that company funds would be transferred. As these acts were committed repeatedly over a long period and are highly blameworthy, the panel found it difficult to regard the level of discipline as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
The constitutional right to assistance of counsel is intended to safeguard personal liberty and therefore is not readily applicable to disciplinary procedures between private parties. There were no circumstances indicating that procedural fairness had been lost.
/
[See More Related Precedents]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (virtual account · fabrication of supporting documents), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Precedent” series.
※ The previous article, “‘Requirements for Application of the Law (Restaurant with Fewer Than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to “disciplinary dismissal (virtual account · fabrication of supporting documents)” can be viewed together on the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (Virtual Account · Fabrication of Supporting Documents).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which, on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal (virtual account · fabrication of supporting documents),” the Labor Relations Commission ultimately ruled in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application).
Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9178 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.16 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee submitted internal payment requests asking that advertising expenses be prepaid into a virtual account designated by the employee, thereby causing the employer to transfer funds over a period of several years. As a result, the employer could not access the account and was unable to verify the details of the advertising expenditures. In the course of requesting prepayment of advertising expenses, the employee fabricated supporting documents by altering existing plans, and, despite knowing that a former employee could still access the company’s account on an online platform, took no action, thereby exposing the company to significant risk. ...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a situation where the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal on an employee for, among other things, submitting internal requests for prepayment of advertising expenses into the employee’s own virtual account and manipulating supporting documents in that process. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately dismissed the employee’s application for remedy, ruling in favor of the employer. This article summarizes the implications from the practical perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&, focusing on the reasoning structure of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is “whether disciplinary dismissal is socially acceptable where the employee, while asserting that he acted under instructions from a superior, used a virtual account over several years, manipulated supporting documents for advertising expenses, and neglected the management of an account held by a former employee, and whether the failure to guarantee assistance of counsel in the disciplinary procedure constitutes a procedural defect.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel in this case found that: the employer had, over a period of several years, transferred advertising expenses into a virtual account designated by the employee; as a result, the company could not directly access the account and was unable to verify the details of the advertising expenditures; the employee fabricated supporting documents by altering existing plans when requesting prepayment of advertising expenses; and, despite knowing that a former employee could still access the company’s account on an online platform, the employee took no action, thereby exposing the company to substantial risk.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that all grounds for discipline existed with respect to the employee.
Furthermore, even if there were instructions from a superior, the panel held that the employee could have recognized, by exercising even a minimum level of care, that the execution of advertising expenses was highly inappropriate. Nevertheless, the employee actively fabricated supporting documents so that company funds would continue to be transferred repeatedly and over a long period. Considering the number and duration of the misconduct and the risks posed to the company’s finances and credit, the panel found it difficult to regard the level of discipline as manifestly excessive by social standards.
With respect to the disciplinary procedure, the panel noted that the constitutional right to assistance of counsel is a right in criminal proceedings intended to safeguard personal liberty and is not readily applicable as such to disciplinary procedures between private parties. Unless rules of employment, collective agreements, or similar instruments stipulate assistance of counsel as a mandatory procedure, it is difficult to deny procedural fairness solely on the ground that such assistance was not guaranteed. As there were no other circumstances indicating a loss of procedural fairness, the panel concluded that there was no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even when acting under instructions from a superior, employees must exercise at least a minimum level of reasonable doubt and verification in relation to the execution of company funds. In particular, the use of virtual accounts and the alteration or manipulation of supporting documents can at any time constitute grounds for disciplinary dismissal and should be treated with great caution. In addition, negligence such as poor management of former employees’ accounts or failure to revoke access rights—i.e., risks created by “leaving things unattended”—can also constitute grounds for discipline. It is therefore important to be familiar with and comply with internal rules on information security and account management. Since it is difficult to challenge an unfair dismissal solely on the basis that participation of counsel was not guaranteed in the disciplinary procedure, the key in actual remedy proceedings is to systematically prepare facts and evidence concerning the existence of grounds for discipline and the excessiveness of the level of discipline.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to minimize structures in which company funds such as advertising expenses are transferred to external accounts or virtual accounts. Where unavoidable, clear internal controls should be established, such as requiring accounts in the company’s name, dual approvals, and regular audits. When considering disciplinary dismissal, employers should carefully examine whether the conduct falls within the grounds for discipline and dismissal under the rules of employment and collective agreements, and, taking into account the duration, frequency, and amount of the misconduct and its impact on corporate order, determine whether it has reached a level at which “continuation of the employment relationship is difficult by social standards.” In addition, it is advisable to document at least the basic disciplinary procedures—such as convening the disciplinary committee, providing opportunities to attend and present explanations, and the decision-making process—in order to reduce the burden of proof regarding procedural fairness in future proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission.
This type of precedent clearly illustrates how grounds for discipline, the level of discipline, and procedures are evaluated in disputes over unfair dismissal. To prepare for similar cases, it is useful to understand in advance the tendencies of the Labor Relations Commission’s decisions. Employees considering whether to file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, as well as HR and labor-management personnel, should fully review the facts and legal issues in consultation with a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee submitted internal requests for prepayment of advertising expenses into a virtual account designated by the employee, thereby causing the employer to transfer funds over a period of several years. As a result, the employer could not access the account and was unable to verify the details of the advertising expenditures. In the course of requesting prepayment of advertising expenses, the employee fabricated supporting documents by altering existing plans. In addition, despite knowing that a former employee could still access the company’s account on an online platform, the employee took no action, thereby exposing the company to significant risk. Accordingly, the panel held that all grounds for discipline existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Even if the employee acted under instructions from a superior, the employee could have recognized, by exercising even a minimum level of care, that the advertising expenses were being executed in a highly inappropriate manner. Nevertheless, the employee actively fabricated supporting documents so that company funds would be transferred. As these acts were committed repeatedly over a long period and are highly blameworthy, the panel found it difficult to regard the level of discipline as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
The constitutional right to assistance of counsel is intended to safeguard personal liberty and therefore is not readily applicable to disciplinary procedures between private parties. There were no circumstances indicating that procedural fairness had been lost.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee submitted internal requests for prepayment of advertising expenses into a virtual account designated by the employee, thereby causing the employer to transfer funds over a period of several years. As a result, the employer could not access the account and was unable to verify the details of the advertising expenditures. In the course of requesting prepayment of advertising expenses, the employee fabricated supporting documents by altering existing plans. In addition, despite knowing that a former employee could still access the company’s account on an online platform, the employee took no action, thereby exposing the company to significant risk. Accordingly, the panel held that all grounds for discipline existed.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
Even if the employee acted under instructions from a superior, the employee could have recognized, by exercising even a minimum level of care, that the advertising expenses were being executed in a highly inappropriate manner. Nevertheless, the employee actively fabricated supporting documents so that company funds would be transferred. As these acts were committed repeatedly over a long period and are highly blameworthy, the panel found it difficult to regard the level of discipline as excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure
The constitutional right to assistance of counsel is intended to safeguard personal liberty and therefore is not readily applicable to disciplinary procedures between private parties. There were no circumstances indicating that procedural fairness had been lost.
/
[See More Related Precedents]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (virtual account · fabrication of supporting documents), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Precedent” series.
※ The previous article, “‘Requirements for Application of the Law (Restaurant with Fewer Than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Precedent,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to “disciplinary dismissal (virtual account · fabrication of supporting documents)” can be viewed together on the “List of Precedents Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (Virtual Account · Fabrication of Supporting Documents).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
