Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management of Local Government Subsidies)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 295)
- Date2026/03/18 04:14
- Read 197
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (negligent management of local government subsidies)” was ultimately concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision-making body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1490 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Legitimacy of the grounds for discipline
The employee was in a position where he was required to manage and supervise the execution of activity allowances for the Silver Police Volunteer Corps, which were paid out of local government subsidies, so that they would be properly disbursed. Nevertheless, he neglected this duty of care, resulting in the imposition of an additional sanction amounting to KRW 17,760,000 on the local chapter. This falls under a ground for discipline under the chapter’s office regulations, and is therefore recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. However, all other alleged grounds for discipline were insufficiently proven, and there were no other circumstances to recognize them, so treating them as grounds for discipline was improper. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a dispute before the Labor Relations Commission in which an employee, who had been responsible for managing and supervising the execution of activity allowances for the Silver Police Volunteer Corps funded by local government subsidies, was dismissed for disciplinary reasons by the employer and then applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Central Labor Relations Commission focused on whether, even though only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were recognized, proceeding to dismissal on the basis of those grounds alone constituted a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where a portion of the grounds for discipline is recognized on the basis that an additional sanction has been imposed due to a breach of the duty to manage and supervise local government subsidies, whether dismissal for disciplinary reasons based on such grounds is justified in terms of the level of discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee, although in a position to manage and supervise the execution of activity allowances for the Silver Police Volunteer Corps funded by local government subsidies so that they would be properly disbursed, failed to fulfill his duty of care, resulting in the imposition of an additional sanction of KRW 17,760,000 on the local chapter; that this circumstance constitutes a ground for discipline under the chapter’s office regulations, so the existence of grounds for discipline as such is recognized; but that all other additionally asserted grounds for discipline were insufficiently proven and could not otherwise be recognized, and therefore could not be relied upon as grounds for discipline.
In view of the above, the Commission held that:
– The ground for discipline that is recognized as legitimate is of the same nature as that in a prior case in which the Commission had already determined that “proceeding to dismissal constituted a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline”;
– No new evidence or circumstances were identified in this case that would warrant a different assessment; and
– The disciplinary procedure met the formal and substantive requirements, such as providing an opportunity to be heard and written notice of the grounds for discipline, and thus was free from procedural defects.
On this basis, the Commission concluded that, notwithstanding the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal was excessive, and therefore the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if certain misconduct or negligence in management is recognized, there may still be a possibility of obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal where, in light of the degree of misconduct, its consequences, and the nature of the duties, proceeding to dismissal is manifestly unreasonable by social standards.
In particular, as in this case, if there is a prior decision by a Labor Relations Commission or court that has already recognized that the level of discipline was excessive for the same or similar grounds, it is important to actively argue abuse of disciplinary discretion based on that legal reasoning.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even in serious matters such as breaches of management and supervision duties or misconduct relating to subsidies and budgets, the level of discipline should be determined by comprehensively considering the specific amount of damage, the employee’s role, the presence or absence of intent or gross negligence, and the standards established in precedents and prior Labor Relations Commission decisions in similar cases.
Where only some of the alleged grounds for discipline are recognized, employers should first consider stepwise disciplinary measures such as suspension from duty or pay reduction. If there is a history in prior cases where dismissal was found to be excessive for the same grounds, employers must take into account that choosing dismissal again on the same grounds is highly likely to be judged as unfair dismissal.
In this type of unfair dismissal dispute, the Labor Relations Commission tends to strictly examine not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the “reasonableness” between the grounds and the disciplinary measure, and whether there has been an abuse of disciplinary discretion. As in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, it is advisable to thoroughly analyze relevant precedents and prior Labor Relations Commission decisions in advance and to review the appropriateness of the level of discipline before taking action.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Discipline
The employee was in a position where he was required to manage and supervise the execution of activity allowances for the Silver Police Volunteer Corps funded by local government subsidies so that they would be properly disbursed. Nevertheless, he neglected this duty of care, resulting in the imposition of an additional sanction of KRW 17,760,000 on the local chapter. This falls under a ground for discipline under the chapter’s office regulations and is therefore recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. However, all other alleged grounds for discipline were insufficiently proven, and there were no other circumstances to recognize them, so relying on them as grounds for discipline was improper.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to the ground for discipline that is recognized as legitimate—“disciplinary action requested against employees who received improper payments as a result of the 2023 special audit of local government subsidies”—the Commission, in a prior case, had already determined that dismissal on the basis of this ground constituted a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline. No evidence has been identified in this case that would justify a different conclusion.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There is no basis to view the disciplinary procedure as having been carried out merely in form. The employee was given an opportunity to explain, and the grounds for discipline were notified in writing. Therefore, there is no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Discipline
The employee was in a position where he was required to manage and supervise the execution of activity allowances for the Silver Police Volunteer Corps funded by local government subsidies so that they would be properly disbursed. Nevertheless, he neglected this duty of care, resulting in the imposition of an additional sanction of KRW 17,760,000 on the local chapter. This falls under a ground for discipline under the chapter’s office regulations and is therefore recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. However, all other alleged grounds for discipline were insufficiently proven, and there were no other circumstances to recognize them, so relying on them as grounds for discipline was improper.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to the ground for discipline that is recognized as legitimate—“disciplinary action requested against employees who received improper payments as a result of the 2023 special audit of local government subsidies”—the Commission, in a prior case, had already determined that dismissal on the basis of this ground constituted a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline. No evidence has been identified in this case that would justify a different conclusion.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There is no basis to view the disciplinary procedure as having been carried out merely in form. The employee was given an opportunity to explain, and the grounds for discipline were notified in writing. Therefore, there is no defect in the disciplinary procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Non-formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Expiration of Exclusion Period (People’s Sinmungo Petition)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (negligent management of local government subsidies), 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 Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Denial of Employee Status (COO Chief Operating Officer)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (negligent management of local government subsidies) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management of Local Government Subsidies).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (negligent management of local government subsidies)” was ultimately concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision-making body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1490 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.12 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Legitimacy of the grounds for discipline
The employee was in a position where he was required to manage and supervise the execution of activity allowances for the Silver Police Volunteer Corps, which were paid out of local government subsidies, so that they would be properly disbursed. Nevertheless, he neglected this duty of care, resulting in the imposition of an additional sanction amounting to KRW 17,760,000 on the local chapter. This falls under a ground for discipline under the chapter’s office regulations, and is therefore recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. However, all other alleged grounds for discipline were insufficiently proven, and there were no other circumstances to recognize them, so treating them as grounds for discipline was improper. …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a dispute before the Labor Relations Commission in which an employee, who had been responsible for managing and supervising the execution of activity allowances for the Silver Police Volunteer Corps funded by local government subsidies, was dismissed for disciplinary reasons by the employer and then applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Central Labor Relations Commission focused on whether, even though only some of the alleged grounds for discipline were recognized, proceeding to dismissal on the basis of those grounds alone constituted a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where a portion of the grounds for discipline is recognized on the basis that an additional sanction has been imposed due to a breach of the duty to manage and supervise local government subsidies, whether dismissal for disciplinary reasons based on such grounds is justified in terms of the level of discipline.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee, although in a position to manage and supervise the execution of activity allowances for the Silver Police Volunteer Corps funded by local government subsidies so that they would be properly disbursed, failed to fulfill his duty of care, resulting in the imposition of an additional sanction of KRW 17,760,000 on the local chapter; that this circumstance constitutes a ground for discipline under the chapter’s office regulations, so the existence of grounds for discipline as such is recognized; but that all other additionally asserted grounds for discipline were insufficiently proven and could not otherwise be recognized, and therefore could not be relied upon as grounds for discipline.
In view of the above, the Commission held that:
– The ground for discipline that is recognized as legitimate is of the same nature as that in a prior case in which the Commission had already determined that “proceeding to dismissal constituted a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline”;
– No new evidence or circumstances were identified in this case that would warrant a different assessment; and
– The disciplinary procedure met the formal and substantive requirements, such as providing an opportunity to be heard and written notice of the grounds for discipline, and thus was free from procedural defects.
On this basis, the Commission concluded that, notwithstanding the existence of grounds for discipline, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal was excessive, and therefore the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if certain misconduct or negligence in management is recognized, there may still be a possibility of obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal where, in light of the degree of misconduct, its consequences, and the nature of the duties, proceeding to dismissal is manifestly unreasonable by social standards.
In particular, as in this case, if there is a prior decision by a Labor Relations Commission or court that has already recognized that the level of discipline was excessive for the same or similar grounds, it is important to actively argue abuse of disciplinary discretion based on that legal reasoning.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even in serious matters such as breaches of management and supervision duties or misconduct relating to subsidies and budgets, the level of discipline should be determined by comprehensively considering the specific amount of damage, the employee’s role, the presence or absence of intent or gross negligence, and the standards established in precedents and prior Labor Relations Commission decisions in similar cases.
Where only some of the alleged grounds for discipline are recognized, employers should first consider stepwise disciplinary measures such as suspension from duty or pay reduction. If there is a history in prior cases where dismissal was found to be excessive for the same grounds, employers must take into account that choosing dismissal again on the same grounds is highly likely to be judged as unfair dismissal.
In this type of unfair dismissal dispute, the Labor Relations Commission tends to strictly examine not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the “reasonableness” between the grounds and the disciplinary measure, and whether there has been an abuse of disciplinary discretion. As in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&, it is advisable to thoroughly analyze relevant precedents and prior Labor Relations Commission decisions in advance and to review the appropriateness of the level of discipline before taking action.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Discipline
The employee was in a position where he was required to manage and supervise the execution of activity allowances for the Silver Police Volunteer Corps funded by local government subsidies so that they would be properly disbursed. Nevertheless, he neglected this duty of care, resulting in the imposition of an additional sanction of KRW 17,760,000 on the local chapter. This falls under a ground for discipline under the chapter’s office regulations and is therefore recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. However, all other alleged grounds for discipline were insufficiently proven, and there were no other circumstances to recognize them, so relying on them as grounds for discipline was improper.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to the ground for discipline that is recognized as legitimate—“disciplinary action requested against employees who received improper payments as a result of the 2023 special audit of local government subsidies”—the Commission, in a prior case, had already determined that dismissal on the basis of this ground constituted a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline. No evidence has been identified in this case that would justify a different conclusion.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There is no basis to view the disciplinary procedure as having been carried out merely in form. The employee was given an opportunity to explain, and the grounds for discipline were notified in writing. Therefore, there is no defect in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Discipline
The employee was in a position where he was required to manage and supervise the execution of activity allowances for the Silver Police Volunteer Corps funded by local government subsidies so that they would be properly disbursed. Nevertheless, he neglected this duty of care, resulting in the imposition of an additional sanction of KRW 17,760,000 on the local chapter. This falls under a ground for discipline under the chapter’s office regulations and is therefore recognized as a legitimate ground for discipline. However, all other alleged grounds for discipline were insufficiently proven, and there were no other circumstances to recognize them, so relying on them as grounds for discipline was improper.
B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
With respect to the ground for discipline that is recognized as legitimate—“disciplinary action requested against employees who received improper payments as a result of the 2023 special audit of local government subsidies”—the Commission, in a prior case, had already determined that dismissal on the basis of this ground constituted a deviation or abuse of the employer’s discretionary power in determining the level of discipline. No evidence has been identified in this case that would justify a different conclusion.
C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure
There is no basis to view the disciplinary procedure as having been carried out merely in form. The employee was given an opportunity to explain, and the grounds for discipline were notified in writing. Therefore, there is no defect in the disciplinary procedure. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Non-formation of Employment Contract (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Expiration of Exclusion Period (People’s Sinmungo Petition)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (negligent management of local government subsidies), 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 Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Denial of Employee Status (COO Chief Operating Officer)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (negligent management of local government subsidies) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management of Local Government Subsidies).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
