This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (negligent credit review).” [Case Information] This case concerns a decision where the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary severity (negligent credit review).” Decision Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2026부해1405, ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-06-30 · Outcome: Dismissed Key Issue Summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee of a bank who was responsible for credit review and increasing credit card limits failed to properly verify the review documents, resulting in large-scale bad assets. The Labor Relations Commission was asked to determine whether the resulting disciplinary dismissal constituted unfair dismissal. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that even if some of the grounds for discipline were acknowledged, the level of discipline imposed was excessively severe. In Case No. 2026부해1405, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, “where repeated negligence occurs in the course of a bank’s credit review process and such negligence results in substantial financial loss, the grounds and level of disciplinary dismissal (or equivalent severe disciplinary measures) are justified, and how this affects the outcome of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that bank officers and employees are subject to a much stricter duty of care and obligation to comply with internal controls than employees of ordinary companies; that, as the “primary reviewer,” the employee neglected key review items required in the credit review process not on a one-off basis but continuously and repeatedly; and that, as a result, the bank suffered a substantial financial loss of approximately KRW 4,651,000,000. In light of these factors, the panel held that the employee’s conduct clearly fell within the grounds for discipline under the work rules, and that, considering the scale of the loss, the nature of the duties, and the standards of trust and ethics required of financial institutions, it was difficult to conclude that the level of discipline imposed had clearly lost its validity under social norms. The panel therefore found that both the grounds and the level of the dismissal were justified, and ruled that the dismissal did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees of financial institutions—particularly those in key control functions such as credit, review, and risk management—should be aware that even seemingly simple mistakes, if repeated, may be evaluated as “disruption of corporate order” and may lead to severe disciplinary measures. Internal credit regulations, review manuals, and delegation/reporting systems are not merely formal rules; they serve as benchmarks for determining whether discipline is warranted and for assessing the severity of discipline. Employees should therefore regularly check their own compliance with these rules. In addition, the more likely it is that a task could lead to large-scale losses, the more important it is to leave a record—through documents and system logs—of the review process, warning signals, and submission/reporting history. Such records can serve as a minimum safeguard in later demonstrating that one has fulfilled the duty of care. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, it is necessary to clearly set out in the work rules, personnel regulations, and credit regulations the heightened duty of care and obligation to comply with internal controls required of employees of financial institutions, and to specify the standards for the level of discipline (reprimand, pay cut, suspension, dismissal, etc.) in the event of violations. In addition, for high-risk tasks such as credit review and limit increases, employers should establish control mechanisms such as checklists, dual review, and system alerts, which will not only support the justification of disciplinary measures but also reduce regulatory risk from supervisory authorities. Furthermore, if, at the disciplinary stage, the employer keeps a record showing that it comprehensively considered the scale of the loss, the repetitive nature of the conduct, the importance of the duties, and the employee’s past work attitude, such documentation will be of great assistance in proving the legitimacy of the disciplinary action if the issue of abuse of disciplinary discretion is later raised before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee’s failure, in the course of credit review and credit card limit increase duties, to thoroughly verify review documents and the negligent performance of related review tasks were recognized as grounds for discipline. (b) Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline (1) Bank officers and employees are subject to a stricter duty of care and obligation to comply with internal controls, and where a breach of such duties leads to bad assets, the necessity and reasonableness of discipline are recognized to an even greater extent; (2) As the primary reviewer, the employee continuously and repeatedly neglected key review items required in the credit review process; (3) As a result of the employee’s conduct, the bank’s financial loss reached KRW 4,651,000,000 … 3. Summary of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee’s failure, in the course of credit review and credit card limit increase duties, to thoroughly verify review documents and the negligent performance of related review tasks were recognized as grounds for discipline. (b) Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline (1) Bank officers and employees are subject to a stricter duty of care and obligation to comply with internal controls, and where a breach of such duties leads to bad assets, the necessity and reasonableness of discipline are recognized to an even greater extent; (2) As the primary reviewer, the employee continuously and repeatedly neglected key review items required in the credit review process; (3) As a result of the employee’s conduct, the bank’s financial loss reached KRW 4,651,000,000 … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Interest in Remedy (70% Wage Standby Order)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case No.: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary severity (negligent credit review), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Implied Dismissal (Laptop Retrieval · Loss of Four Major Insurances Coverage)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (negligent credit review) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Credit Review).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article