Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning Disciplinary Dismissal (Prostitution · Receipt of Money and Valuables) (Unfair Dismissal 440)
- Date2026/05/09 04:04
- Read 114
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary dismissal (prostitution · receipt of money and valuables).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae99 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.27 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employee’s acts of receiving entertainment including prostitution from a person related to his duties, receiving money and valuables while on a business trip, and improperly exercising his job authority constituted violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees. All of these acts of misconduct fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 75 of the Rules of Employment.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee of an employer with the character of a public institution was disciplinarily dismissed on charges of receiving entertainment including prostitution from a person related to his duties, receiving money and valuables while on a business trip, and improperly exercising his job authority. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed whether there had been violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees, as well as the appropriateness of the level of discipline and the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately rejected the employee’s claims.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employee engages in misconduct such as receiving entertainment including prostitution from a person related to his duties, receiving money and valuables while on a business trip, and improperly exercising job authority, does such misconduct constitute just cause for disciplinary dismissal, and are the level of discipline and the procedures lawful so that the dismissal does not fall within the scope of unfair dismissal subject to remedy?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employee’s receipt of entertainment including prostitution, receipt of money and valuables while on a business trip, and improper exercise of job authority constituted violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees, and therefore grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment were established.
Considering the nature and content of the misconduct, its relation to the employee’s duties, and its impact on corporate order, it was difficult to regard the misconduct as minor or as mere negligence. In addition, Supreme Court precedents hold that the determination of the level of discipline is, in principle, within the employer’s discretion, and only when it is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms will it be deemed an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, in this case, the dismissal was based on a responsible cause sufficient to render continuation of the employment relationship impossible under social norms, and it was difficult to view the level of discipline—dismissal—as excessively severe.
Furthermore, the employer had given the employee an opportunity to explain, and the employee in fact presented explanations regarding the grounds for discipline. Thus, there were no serious defects in the disciplinary procedures.
The Commission therefore held that the dismissal in this case was justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees must clearly recognize that receiving entertainment or money and valuables from persons related to their duties—especially entertainment involving prostitution, which can seriously damage public trust and the company’s reputation—can hardly be justified on grounds such as “personal friendship” or “customary practice.”
Misconduct that violates the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees may lead to increasingly severe disciplinary measures as such acts accumulate. If there are no mitigating factors such as restitution of damage, genuine remorse, or long service, even disciplinary dismissal may be deemed justified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important that the Rules of Employment and the Code of Conduct, in linkage with the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, clearly define the receipt of money and entertainment, prostitution, and abuse of job authority as explicit grounds for discipline, and that, when actual misconduct occurs, the relevant facts are specifically identified and supporting evidence is secured.
It is also necessary to ensure procedural fairness by providing prior notice before convening a disciplinary committee and granting the employee an opportunity to explain, and to review the proportionality of the level of discipline by comprehensively considering the content and degree of the misconduct, the nature of the duties, and the extent of damage to the company’s image.
In this type of case, it is advisable for both employers and employees to separately examine (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and (iii) the reasonableness of the level of discipline in light of social norms, and to systematically organize the facts so that they meet the standards required by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s acts of receiving entertainment including prostitution from a person related to his duties, receiving money and valuables while on a business trip, and improperly exercising his job authority constituted violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees. All such misconduct fell under the grounds for discipline prescribed in Article 75 of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s misconduct could not be regarded as minor or as mere negligence, and it was difficult to find that the employer’s dismissal had clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms or constituted an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the level of discipline was appropriate.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer provided the employee with an opportunity to explain, and the employee did in fact present explanations regarding the grounds for discipline. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s acts of receiving entertainment including prostitution from a person related to his duties, receiving money and valuables while on a business trip, and improperly exercising his job authority constituted violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees. All such misconduct fell under the grounds for discipline prescribed in Article 75 of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s misconduct could not be regarded as minor or as mere negligence, and it was difficult to find that the employer’s dismissal had clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms or constituted an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the level of discipline was appropriate.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer provided the employee with an opportunity to explain, and the employee did in fact present explanations regarding the grounds for discipline. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were lawful. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (prostitution · receipt of money and valuables), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policies · failure to comply 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Whether Subject to Remedy (Adjustment of Pay Step)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal (prostitution · receipt of money and valuables) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (Prostitution · Receipt of Money and Valuables).”
※ 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 (prostitution · receipt of money and valuables).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae99 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.27 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether grounds for discipline existed
The employee’s acts of receiving entertainment including prostitution from a person related to his duties, receiving money and valuables while on a business trip, and improperly exercising his job authority constituted violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees. All of these acts of misconduct fell under the grounds for discipline set out in Article 75 of the Rules of Employment.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, an employee of an employer with the character of a public institution was disciplinarily dismissed on charges of receiving entertainment including prostitution from a person related to his duties, receiving money and valuables while on a business trip, and improperly exercising his job authority. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed whether there had been violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees, as well as the appropriateness of the level of discipline and the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and ultimately rejected the employee’s claims.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employee engages in misconduct such as receiving entertainment including prostitution from a person related to his duties, receiving money and valuables while on a business trip, and improperly exercising job authority, does such misconduct constitute just cause for disciplinary dismissal, and are the level of discipline and the procedures lawful so that the dismissal does not fall within the scope of unfair dismissal subject to remedy?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employee’s receipt of entertainment including prostitution, receipt of money and valuables while on a business trip, and improper exercise of job authority constituted violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees, and therefore grounds for discipline under the Rules of Employment were established.
Considering the nature and content of the misconduct, its relation to the employee’s duties, and its impact on corporate order, it was difficult to regard the misconduct as minor or as mere negligence. In addition, Supreme Court precedents hold that the determination of the level of discipline is, in principle, within the employer’s discretion, and only when it is markedly unreasonable in light of social norms will it be deemed an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, in this case, the dismissal was based on a responsible cause sufficient to render continuation of the employment relationship impossible under social norms, and it was difficult to view the level of discipline—dismissal—as excessively severe.
Furthermore, the employer had given the employee an opportunity to explain, and the employee in fact presented explanations regarding the grounds for discipline. Thus, there were no serious defects in the disciplinary procedures.
The Commission therefore held that the dismissal in this case was justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees must clearly recognize that receiving entertainment or money and valuables from persons related to their duties—especially entertainment involving prostitution, which can seriously damage public trust and the company’s reputation—can hardly be justified on grounds such as “personal friendship” or “customary practice.”
Misconduct that violates the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees may lead to increasingly severe disciplinary measures as such acts accumulate. If there are no mitigating factors such as restitution of damage, genuine remorse, or long service, even disciplinary dismissal may be deemed justified.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important that the Rules of Employment and the Code of Conduct, in linkage with the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, clearly define the receipt of money and entertainment, prostitution, and abuse of job authority as explicit grounds for discipline, and that, when actual misconduct occurs, the relevant facts are specifically identified and supporting evidence is secured.
It is also necessary to ensure procedural fairness by providing prior notice before convening a disciplinary committee and granting the employee an opportunity to explain, and to review the proportionality of the level of discipline by comprehensively considering the content and degree of the misconduct, the nature of the duties, and the extent of damage to the company’s image.
In this type of case, it is advisable for both employers and employees to separately examine (i) the existence of grounds for discipline, (ii) the legality of the disciplinary procedures, and (iii) the reasonableness of the level of discipline in light of social norms, and to systematically organize the facts so that they meet the standards required by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s acts of receiving entertainment including prostitution from a person related to his duties, receiving money and valuables while on a business trip, and improperly exercising his job authority constituted violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees. All such misconduct fell under the grounds for discipline prescribed in Article 75 of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s misconduct could not be regarded as minor or as mere negligence, and it was difficult to find that the employer’s dismissal had clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms or constituted an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the level of discipline was appropriate.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer provided the employee with an opportunity to explain, and the employee did in fact present explanations regarding the grounds for discipline. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s acts of receiving entertainment including prostitution from a person related to his duties, receiving money and valuables while on a business trip, and improperly exercising his job authority constituted violations of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Rules of Employment, and the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees. All such misconduct fell under the grounds for discipline prescribed in Article 75 of the Rules of Employment.
B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
The employee’s misconduct could not be regarded as minor or as mere negligence, and it was difficult to find that the employer’s dismissal had clearly lost its reasonableness in light of social norms or constituted an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the level of discipline was appropriate.
C. Legality of the disciplinary procedures
The employer provided the employee with an opportunity to explain, and the employee did in fact present explanations regarding the grounds for discipline. Accordingly, the disciplinary procedures were lawful. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary dismissal (prostitution · receipt of money and valuables), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policies · failure to comply 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Related to ‘Whether Subject to Remedy (Adjustment of Pay Step)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary dismissal (prostitution · receipt of money and valuables) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Dismissal (Prostitution · Receipt of Money and Valuables).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
