[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “level of disciplinary sanction (long-term misconduct).” Decision date: 2026-07-03 · Labor Relations Commission: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해1612 Key issue summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee argued that his conduct resulted from structural problems within the company and established work practices, and that he had informed the HR officer of his side job at the time of hiring. However, ① during the management diagnosis team’s investigation, the employee signed a written confirmation admitting the improper receipt of copyright royalties and the fact of his side job; ② the music royalty settlement amounts were attributed to the employee; ③ despite his claim that he merely followed his predecessor’s work methods, false playback records continued to be created and submitted even after the predecessor left the company; ④ the work rules prohibit side jobs and there is no objective evidence that an exception was allowed; and ⑤ the employee failed to comply with requests during the management diagnosis process to submit specific details and related materials regarding his side job. In light of all this, the grounds for discipline asserted by the employer were found to be established. […truncated in original summary…] 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee was dismissed for cause after being accused of improperly receiving music copyright royalties and engaging in a side job prohibited under the company’s work rules. He then filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary dismissal, and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures, and ruled in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case are whether, in a situation involving suspected improper receipt of copyright royalties and a side job, (i) the grounds for discipline in fact existed, (ii) the level of disciplinary dismissal was so grossly disproportionate as to be clearly unreasonable by social norms, and (iii) the disciplinary procedures under the work rules were lawfully observed. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that the employee, during the management diagnosis team’s investigation, signed a written confirmation admitting the improper receipt of copyright royalties and the fact of his side job; that the music royalty settlement amounts were attributed to the employee personally; that, notwithstanding his claim that he followed his predecessor’s practices, the creation and submission of false playback records continued even after the predecessor left the company; that the work rules explicitly prohibit side jobs and there is no objective material supporting any exceptional permission; and that the employee did not comply with requests during the management diagnosis process to submit materials related to his side job. On this basis, the panel found that the grounds for discipline asserted by the employer were established. In addition, the employer had consistently applied strict disciplinary standards to misconduct such as embezzlement and breach of trust that seriously undermine the company’s trust, and the employee’s misconduct, committed over a long period by exploiting his position, was neither minor in nature nor degree and had a significant impact on the trust relationship with the company. The disciplinary standards also appeared to have been applied consistently rather than being targeted at a specific employee. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as so clearly lacking in reasonableness by social norms as to constitute an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority. The panel further found procedural fairness on the grounds that, in accordance with the work rules and disciplinary guidelines, a personnel committee was convened, the employee was notified of the grounds for discipline, and he was given an opportunity to present his explanation. The decision faithfully reflects the legal principle established by Supreme Court precedents that disciplinary dismissal is justified where all three elements are satisfied: existence of grounds for discipline, appropriateness of the level of sanction, and compliance with disciplinary procedures. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, where there are activities connected to one’s own financial interests—such as receiving copyright royalties or engaging in a side job—it is essential to review the work rules and internal guidelines in advance and obtain the company’s explicit approval. One must bear in mind that arguments such as “it was customary practice” or “I verbally informed them when I joined” are unlikely to be accepted by the Labor Relations Commission when there are objective materials such as signed confirmations, settlement structures, and actual flows of funds. Furthermore, failure to respond faithfully to requests for facts and related materials during a management diagnosis or audit may work against the employee in determining whether grounds for discipline exist. Even for one’s own defense, it is important to organize relevant materials and prepare a consistent explanation, and to make active use of any opportunity to present one’s case. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, the structure of copyright royalty settlements, the party entitled to the proceeds, and rules prohibiting side jobs or profit-making activities should be clearly reflected in the work rules and written contracts, and the standards for the level of disciplinary sanctions in case of violations should be established in advance. When imposing discipline, it is important to conduct a concrete investigation into the content, duration, and amount of the misconduct, its relation to the employee’s position, and its impact on the trust relationship with the company, and to secure objective evidence such as the employee’s written confirmations and settlement statements. In addition, procedures such as convening a disciplinary committee, prior notice, and providing an opportunity to explain must be carried out in accordance with the rules, and records such as minutes and notices should be preserved to defend the legitimacy of the discipline before the Labor Relations Commission. The level of disciplinary sanctions should be applied consistently in accordance with internal standards so as not to invite suspicion that a particular employee is being singled out for discriminatory treatment. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which the dismissal was found to be justified because grounds for discipline existed, the level of sanction was appropriate, and there were no defects in the procedure. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee argued that his conduct resulted from structural problems within the company and established work practices, and that he had informed the HR officer of his side job at the time of hiring. However, in light of the following: ① during the management diagnosis team’s investigation, the employee signed a written confirmation admitting the improper receipt of copyright royalties and the fact of his side job; ② the music royalty settlement amounts were attributed to the employee; ③ despite his claim that he merely followed his predecessor’s work methods, the creation and submission of false playback records continued even after that employee left the company; ④ the work rules prohibit side jobs and there is no objective material supporting a finding that an exception was allowed; and ⑤ the employee did not comply with requests during the management diagnosis process to submit specific details and related materials regarding his side job; the grounds for discipline asserted by the employer were found to be established. b. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction The employer applies strict disciplinary standards to misconduct such as embezzlement and breach of trust that seriously undermine the company’s trust. The employee’s misconduct was committed over a long period by exploiting his position, and its nature and degree are by no means minor; it is also deemed to have had a significant impact on the trust relationship with the company. In addition, the standards for the level of disciplinary sanctions appear to have been applied consistently. Taking these factors together, it is difficult to regard the disciplinary dismissal in this case as so clearly lacking in reasonableness by social norms as to constitute a deviation or abuse of the discretionary authority granted to the disciplinary body. c. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures A personnel committee was convened in accordance with the disciplinary procedures set out in the work rules and disciplinary guidelines, and the employee was notified of the grounds for discipline and given a sufficient opportunity to present his explanation. The disciplinary procedures are therefore deemed to have been lawfully carried out. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Level of Disciplinary Sanction (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Level of Disciplinary Sanction (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, level of disciplinary sanction (long-term misconduct), 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 Disciplinary Cancellation (Unilateral Cancellation of Prior Discipline)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to level of disciplinary sanction (long-term misconduct) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions on Level of Disciplinary Sanction (Long-Term Misconduct).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article