[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “disciplinary severity (removal of company data via USB).” Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae139 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-06 · Case outcome: Initial decision upheld Key issue summary: … All five grounds for discipline are recognized, including the fact that the employee stored a large volume of the company’s key data on a personal USB without the employer’s approval. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the employee was dismissed for multiple acts of misconduct, including storing a large volume of the company’s key data on a personal USB without the company’s approval. The legitimacy of the dismissal was contested before the Labor Relations Commission and the Central Labor Relations Commission. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the initial decision in favor of the employer. This case falls within the category of disciplinary dismissals involving data leakage and security violations, which Labor Law Firm Law& frequently handles. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether the disciplinary dismissal is justified in terms of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity) and procedure, in circumstances where five grounds for discipline are recognized, including the large‑scale removal of key company data to a personal USB without company approval. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that all five grounds for discipline were established, including the fact that the employee stored a large volume of the company’s key data on a personal USB without the employer’s approval; that the nature and degree of the misconduct were serious and that intent was present; that, viewed as a whole, the multiple acts of misconduct could be evaluated as making it difficult, under social norms, to continue the employment relationship; and that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure, as a disciplinary committee was convened and its result was notified in accordance with the rules of employment and other relevant regulations. Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as an abuse of the disciplinary authority’s discretion by being markedly unreasonable under social norms, and that the disciplinary procedure was lawful. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be aware that the act of transferring key data to an external storage device such as a personal USB without the company’s express approval may itself be evaluated as “data leakage” or serious misconduct, and that dismissal may follow regardless of whether there was actual external leakage or damage. Where multiple acts of misconduct are at issue, even if each ground may appear minor when viewed individually, they may collectively be evaluated as rising to the level of “destruction of the relationship of trust.” It is therefore important, from the disciplinary stage onward, to explain in as much concrete detail as possible the facts, motives, circumstances, and efforts at remediation. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) Employers should clearly set out in the rules of employment and HR regulations the grounds for discipline and standards for disciplinary severity relating to information security violations, unauthorized removal of data, and the like, and must strictly comply with the procedures prescribed therein, such as convening the disciplinary committee, giving notice of attendance, and notifying the result. In addition, where there are multiple grounds for discipline, it is not sufficient merely to list each ground individually; the overall content, seriousness, and intentionality of the misconduct, and its impact on corporate order, should be organized comprehensively. Doing so will facilitate the employer’s defense, at the Labor Relations Commission or court stage, against allegations of abuse of disciplinary discretion. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History … All five grounds for discipline are recognized, including the fact that the employee stored a large volume of the company’s key data on a personal USB without the employer’s approval. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Taking into comprehensive consideration various factors such as the nature, degree, and duration of the misconduct that formed the grounds for discipline, the purpose of the discipline, and the standards for determining disciplinary severity, the misconduct is serious in degree and intent is recognized. Therefore, it is difficult to view the dismissal as having lost its reasonableness to such an extent, under social norms, that it constitutes an abuse of the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority. c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure As a disciplinary committee was convened and its result was notified in accordance with the rules of employment and other relevant regulations, there is no defect in the disciplinary procedure. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … All five grounds for discipline are recognized, including the fact that the employee stored a large volume of the company’s key data on a personal USB without the employer’s approval. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Taking into comprehensive consideration various factors such as the nature, degree, and duration of the misconduct that formed the grounds for discipline, the purpose of the discipline, and the standards for determining disciplinary severity, the misconduct is serious in degree and intent is recognized. Therefore, it is difficult to view the dismissal as having lost its reasonableness to such an extent, under social norms, that it constitutes an abuse of the discretion entrusted to the disciplinary authority. c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure As a disciplinary committee was convened and its result was notified in accordance with the rules of employment and other relevant regulations, there is no defect in the disciplinary procedure. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld - “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, Disciplinary severity (removal of company data via USB), 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, “‘Disciplinary Severity (25‑Day Suspension from Duty Due to Traffic Accident)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (removal of company data via USB) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Removal of Company Data via USB).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article