Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on Disciplinary Dismissal (Fraudulent Receipt of Housing Support Allowance) (Unfair Dismissal 423)
- Date2026/05/02 04:09
- Read 132
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal (fraudulent receipt of housing support allowance).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae170 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.04.02 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee was able to commute from his/her existing residence to the new workplace, so there was no unavoidable necessity to establish a new residence in the transferred area, and he/she had no intention to actually reside at the new residence. Nevertheless, the employee received housing support allowance totaling KRW 17,100,000 from April 2023 to August 2025 from the company. This conduct violated the purpose of the housing support allowance, which is provided to “officers and employees who, due to a long-distance transfer, leave their cohabiting family members at their former address and move alone to reside in the transferred area,” and therefore constitutes grounds for discipline.
(…truncated in original text)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal imposed on an employee who was found to have abused the company’s housing support allowance system. The matter was contested before the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employee’s long-term receipt of housing support allowance at the new workplace, without any intention to actually reside there, constituted grounds for disciplinary dismissal, whether the level of discipline was excessive, and whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the act of formally changing one’s address to the new workplace and receiving housing support allowance, despite the distance being commutable, constitutes such a serious misconduct that, under social norms, it makes the continuation of the employment contract impossible and thereby justifies disciplinary dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that the employee was able to commute from his/her existing residence to the new workplace; that, despite this, there was no unavoidable necessity to establish a new residence in the transferred area and no intention to actually reside at the new residence; and that, under these circumstances, the employee received a substantial amount of housing support allowance over an extended period, thereby directly contravening the purpose of the system.
In light of the nature and content of the employee’s misconduct, its repetitiveness and intentionality, and its impact on corporate order, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was based on reasons so serious that, under social norms, the employment relationship could not be maintained. Accordingly, the level of discipline could not be regarded as markedly excessive, nor did it constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
The Commission also found that the company complied with the procedures stipulated in its disciplinary regulations, including convening a disciplinary committee, notifying the grounds, and conducting a hearing, and therefore held that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should accurately understand the eligibility requirements for various allowances and support payments, particularly those related to “long-distance transfer,” “single posting,” and “actual residence,” and should apply for and receive such benefits only when they are consistent with their actual work and residence arrangements. Where an employee merely changes his/her address on paper or receives support payments without any intention to actually reside at the relevant location, this may be evaluated as serious misconduct disrupting corporate order, beyond a mere issue of repayment, and may even justify disciplinary dismissal.
In the event of a similar dispute, it is advisable to compile objective materials regarding the actual commuting distance, whether the employee lives with family members, the actual residence situation, and the company’s explanations and practices, and to carefully review, together with a labor law expert, whether there is room to contest the existence of grounds for discipline and the element of intent.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to specify in detail, in the rules of employment and internal regulations, the eligibility requirements for welfare benefits such as housing support allowance and various other allowances, and to define as clearly as possible the meanings of “long-distance transfer,” “single posting,” and “actual residence.” In addition, employers should establish procedures at the application stage requiring submission of supporting documents that can verify the employee’s actual residence and whether he/she lives with family members, and should give prior notice of the disciplinary grounds and recovery standards that will apply if a false application is discovered.
When considering disciplinary dismissal, employers should comprehensively examine the amount and duration of the misconduct, the degree of intent, the employee’s position, the impact on the company’s public nature and external credibility, and consistency with past disciplinary cases, to ensure that the level of discipline is not markedly excessive under social norms. Employers should also strictly comply with the procedures set out in the disciplinary regulations (disciplinary committee, opportunity to explain, etc.).
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee was able to commute from his/her existing residence to the new workplace, so there was no unavoidable necessity to establish a new residence in the transferred area, and he/she had no intention to actually reside at the new residence. Nevertheless, the employee received housing support allowance totaling KRW 17,100,000 from April 2023 to August 2025 from the company. This conduct violated the purpose of the housing support allowance, which is provided to “officers and employees who, due to a long-distance transfer, leave their cohabiting family members at their former address and move alone to reside in the transferred area,” and therefore constitutes grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the nature and content of the employee’s misconduct, its repetitiveness and intentionality, and the impact of the misconduct on corporate order, the case falls under a situation so serious that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Therefore, the level of discipline cannot be considered excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Since the procedures stipulated in the disciplinary regulations were complied with, it is determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee was able to commute from his/her existing residence to the new workplace, so there was no unavoidable necessity to establish a new residence in the transferred area, and he/she had no intention to actually reside at the new residence. Nevertheless, the employee received housing support allowance totaling KRW 17,100,000 from April 2023 to August 2025 from the company. This conduct violated the purpose of the housing support allowance, which is provided to “officers and employees who, due to a long-distance transfer, leave their cohabiting family members at their former address and move alone to reside in the transferred area,” and therefore constitutes grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the nature and content of the employee’s misconduct, its repetitiveness and intentionality, and the impact of the misconduct on corporate order, the case falls under a situation so serious that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Therefore, the level of discipline cannot be considered excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Since the procedures stipulated in the disciplinary regulations were complied with, it is determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Abuse of Probationary Evaluation (Quality Control Probationary Employee)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (fraudulent receipt of housing support allowance), 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Abuse of Probationary Evaluation (Quality Control Probationary Employee),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal (fraudulent receipt of housing support allowance) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (Fraudulent Receipt of Housing Support Allowance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal (fraudulent receipt of housing support allowance).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae170 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.04.02 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee was able to commute from his/her existing residence to the new workplace, so there was no unavoidable necessity to establish a new residence in the transferred area, and he/she had no intention to actually reside at the new residence. Nevertheless, the employee received housing support allowance totaling KRW 17,100,000 from April 2023 to August 2025 from the company. This conduct violated the purpose of the housing support allowance, which is provided to “officers and employees who, due to a long-distance transfer, leave their cohabiting family members at their former address and move alone to reside in the transferred area,” and therefore constitutes grounds for discipline.
(…truncated in original text)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal imposed on an employee who was found to have abused the company’s housing support allowance system. The matter was contested before the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employee’s long-term receipt of housing support allowance at the new workplace, without any intention to actually reside there, constituted grounds for disciplinary dismissal, whether the level of discipline was excessive, and whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether the act of formally changing one’s address to the new workplace and receiving housing support allowance, despite the distance being commutable, constitutes such a serious misconduct that, under social norms, it makes the continuation of the employment contract impossible and thereby justifies disciplinary dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case found that the employee was able to commute from his/her existing residence to the new workplace; that, despite this, there was no unavoidable necessity to establish a new residence in the transferred area and no intention to actually reside at the new residence; and that, under these circumstances, the employee received a substantial amount of housing support allowance over an extended period, thereby directly contravening the purpose of the system.
In light of the nature and content of the employee’s misconduct, its repetitiveness and intentionality, and its impact on corporate order, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was based on reasons so serious that, under social norms, the employment relationship could not be maintained. Accordingly, the level of discipline could not be regarded as markedly excessive, nor did it constitute an abuse of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority.
The Commission also found that the company complied with the procedures stipulated in its disciplinary regulations, including convening a disciplinary committee, notifying the grounds, and conducting a hearing, and therefore held that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should accurately understand the eligibility requirements for various allowances and support payments, particularly those related to “long-distance transfer,” “single posting,” and “actual residence,” and should apply for and receive such benefits only when they are consistent with their actual work and residence arrangements. Where an employee merely changes his/her address on paper or receives support payments without any intention to actually reside at the relevant location, this may be evaluated as serious misconduct disrupting corporate order, beyond a mere issue of repayment, and may even justify disciplinary dismissal.
In the event of a similar dispute, it is advisable to compile objective materials regarding the actual commuting distance, whether the employee lives with family members, the actual residence situation, and the company’s explanations and practices, and to carefully review, together with a labor law expert, whether there is room to contest the existence of grounds for discipline and the element of intent.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to specify in detail, in the rules of employment and internal regulations, the eligibility requirements for welfare benefits such as housing support allowance and various other allowances, and to define as clearly as possible the meanings of “long-distance transfer,” “single posting,” and “actual residence.” In addition, employers should establish procedures at the application stage requiring submission of supporting documents that can verify the employee’s actual residence and whether he/she lives with family members, and should give prior notice of the disciplinary grounds and recovery standards that will apply if a false application is discovered.
When considering disciplinary dismissal, employers should comprehensively examine the amount and duration of the misconduct, the degree of intent, the employee’s position, the impact on the company’s public nature and external credibility, and consistency with past disciplinary cases, to ensure that the level of discipline is not markedly excessive under social norms. Employers should also strictly comply with the procedures set out in the disciplinary regulations (disciplinary committee, opportunity to explain, etc.).
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee was able to commute from his/her existing residence to the new workplace, so there was no unavoidable necessity to establish a new residence in the transferred area, and he/she had no intention to actually reside at the new residence. Nevertheless, the employee received housing support allowance totaling KRW 17,100,000 from April 2023 to August 2025 from the company. This conduct violated the purpose of the housing support allowance, which is provided to “officers and employees who, due to a long-distance transfer, leave their cohabiting family members at their former address and move alone to reside in the transferred area,” and therefore constitutes grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the nature and content of the employee’s misconduct, its repetitiveness and intentionality, and the impact of the misconduct on corporate order, the case falls under a situation so serious that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Therefore, the level of discipline cannot be considered excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Since the procedures stipulated in the disciplinary regulations were complied with, it is determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee was able to commute from his/her existing residence to the new workplace, so there was no unavoidable necessity to establish a new residence in the transferred area, and he/she had no intention to actually reside at the new residence. Nevertheless, the employee received housing support allowance totaling KRW 17,100,000 from April 2023 to August 2025 from the company. This conduct violated the purpose of the housing support allowance, which is provided to “officers and employees who, due to a long-distance transfer, leave their cohabiting family members at their former address and move alone to reside in the transferred area,” and therefore constitutes grounds for discipline.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
In light of the nature and content of the employee’s misconduct, its repetitiveness and intentionality, and the impact of the misconduct on corporate order, the case falls under a situation so serious that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. Therefore, the level of discipline cannot be considered excessive.
C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures
Since the procedures stipulated in the disciplinary regulations were complied with, it is determined that there were no procedural defects in the disciplinary process. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Abuse of Probationary Evaluation (Quality Control Probationary Employee)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (fraudulent receipt of housing support allowance), 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Abuse of Probationary Evaluation (Quality Control Probationary Employee),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal (fraudulent receipt of housing support allowance) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (Fraudulent Receipt of Housing Support Allowance).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
