[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) in a dispute over “disciplinary severity (change of password and deletion of data on a work PC).” Decision date: 2026-06-30 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1304 Key issues in summary: A. Existence of grounds for discipline Of the eight grounds for discipline asserted by the employer, a total of five were recognized: unauthorized use of a corporate card, false reporting of attendance, workplace harassment, obstruction of work by changing the password of a work computer, and unauthorized removal of work materials. The remaining three grounds were not recognized. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline (1) The misconduct of the employee was serious even on the basis of the grounds that were recognized; (2) the employee caused substantial disruption to the employer’s business by, among other things, changing the password of the work computer and deleting work data; … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal, claiming that the dismissal was unjust. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined whether the grounds for discipline were established, whether the level of discipline (disciplinary severity) was appropriate, and whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful. As in many cases frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission focused on whether dismissal can still be considered justified in situations where multiple grounds for discipline coexist, but only some of those grounds are ultimately recognized. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where only 5 out of 8 grounds for discipline are recognized, do the recognized grounds alone constitute serious misconduct such that, under social norms, it is difficult to continue the employment relationship, and is the resulting disciplinary dismissal not excessively severe? Furthermore, are there any defects in the disciplinary procedures?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that, among the eight grounds for discipline asserted by the employer, five were established by objective evidence and other materials: unauthorized use of a corporate card, false reporting of attendance, workplace harassment, obstruction of work by changing the password of a work computer, and unauthorized removal of work materials. The panel held that these acts alone constituted misconduct that seriously damaged corporate order and the relationship of trust, and that, in particular, the change of the work computer password and deletion of data caused significant disruption to the employer’s business operations. Accordingly, the Commission determined that the dismissal in this case was justified, because (i) the existence of grounds for discipline was established, (ii) the level of discipline in the form of dismissal could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable under social norms, and (iii) the disciplinary procedures met the standards required by the work rules and case law, in that the employee was given an opportunity to explain and the grounds for discipline and the legal basis were notified in writing. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that acts such as private use of a corporate card, false reporting of attendance, workplace harassment, unauthorized removal of work materials, and changing the password of a work computer and deleting data each constitute individual grounds for discipline, and that the accumulation of multiple such grounds may justify dismissal. Even if some grounds for discipline are not recognized, dismissal may still be upheld on the basis of the remaining grounds. Therefore, it is very risky to prepare an unfair dismissal claim relying solely on the fact that “some allegations were cleared.” Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the work rules and HR regulations the grounds for discipline, the types of disciplinary measures, and the criteria for determining disciplinary severity, and to systematically collect and preserve evidence of each act of misconduct. In addition, only by faithfully complying with procedural requirements—such as convening a disciplinary committee, providing the employee with an opportunity to explain, and giving written notice of the grounds for discipline and the legal basis—can the employer defend the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal based on the remaining grounds, even if some grounds for discipline are rejected by the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which five out of eight grounds for discipline were recognized, and the Commission held that the level of discipline was appropriate with respect to the recognized grounds, that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedures, and that the dismissal was justified. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline Of the eight grounds for discipline asserted by the employer, a total of five grounds were recognized: unauthorized use of a corporate card, false reporting of attendance, workplace harassment, obstruction of work by changing the password of a work computer, and unauthorized removal of work materials. The remaining three grounds for discipline were not recognized. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline (1) The employee’s misconduct was serious even on the basis of the grounds for discipline that were recognized; and (2) the employee caused substantial disruption to the employer’s business by, among other things, changing the password of the work computer and deleting work data. In light of these factors, the level of discipline in the form of dismissal was not excessive. c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures Since the employee was given sufficient opportunity to explain and it was confirmed that the grounds for discipline and the legal basis were notified in writing, there were no procedural defects in the discipline. [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (change of password and deletion of data on a work PC), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, workplace harassment, 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 Precedents” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Credit Review)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of precedents related to disciplinary severity (change of password and deletion of data on a work PC) can be found in the “List of Precedents on Disciplinary Severity (Change of Password and Deletion of Data on a Work PC).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article