[Case Information] This case is a decision precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “non-recognition of disciplinary grounds (false reporting · unjust enrichment).” Decision date: 2026-06-30 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae489 Summary of key issues: A. Existence of disciplinary grounds The disciplinary ground asserted by the employer, “(1) obtaining unjust benefits by abusing one’s position,” could not be regarded as proven misconduct by the employee based solely on the evidence submitted. The disciplinary ground “(2) loss of trust due to false reporting, making it difficult to continue normal employment” could not be recognized as a disciplinary ground because it was entirely unclear what the employee had allegedly reported falsely. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline Because the disciplinary grounds were not recognized, there was no need to further examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Overview of the Case In this case, the employer dismissed the employee for cause, alleging unjust enrichment obtained by abusing the employee’s position and false reporting. The employee then filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, which focused its review on whether the alleged disciplinary grounds actually existed. In determining the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal, the Commission sequentially examined the disciplinary grounds, the level of discipline, and the disciplinary procedures. Among these, whether the disciplinary grounds themselves had been proven became the core issue. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether the disciplinary grounds asserted by the employer—“obtaining unjust benefits by abusing one’s position” and “loss of trust due to false reporting”—were proven by specific and objective evidence, and thus whether they can be recognized as socially acceptable and legitimate grounds for disciplinary dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning With respect to the first disciplinary ground asserted by the employer, “obtaining unjust benefits by abusing one’s position,” the panel held that the evidence submitted was insufficient to objectively prove any misconduct by the employee. With respect to the second disciplinary ground, “loss of trust due to false reporting, making it difficult to continue normal employment,” the panel found that it was not specified at all what the employee had allegedly reported falsely or in what manner, making it difficult to recognize this as a disciplinary ground. Taking these points together, and further noting that, once the disciplinary grounds are not recognized, there is no longer any need to examine whether the level of discipline was excessive, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because no disciplinary grounds existed. However, in this case, the employer notified the employee in writing of the convening of the Personnel Committee, specifying the alleged disciplinary grounds; the employee submitted a written statement in lieu of appearing and thereby presented his or her explanation; and the employer provided a written statement of reasons for the disciplinary action specifying the disciplinary grounds. In light of these facts, the Commission found that the disciplinary procedures themselves satisfied the basic requirements under labor relations laws, work rules, and case law regarding notice and opportunity to be heard, and therefore there was no procedural defect. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if the employer notifies a disciplinary dismissal using only abstract expressions such as “unjust enrichment” or “false reporting,” the content must in fact be specifically identified and proven by objective evidence in order to constitute a legitimate disciplinary ground. Therefore, where unfair dismissal is suspected, employees should carefully examine the specific content of the alleged disciplinary grounds and the existence of supporting evidence, and file an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, actively invoking the principle that the burden of proving the disciplinary grounds lies with the employer. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even though the right to impose discipline is an inherent managerial prerogative, a disciplinary dismissal will only be deemed legitimate if the employee’s misconduct can be proven, through specific facts and evidence, to fall within the disciplinary grounds set out in the work rules. The employer should be aware that vague suspicions or reasons amounting only to subjective impressions will rarely be accepted as legitimate by the Labor Relations Commission. Furthermore, as in this case, even where the disciplinary procedures (written notice, opportunity to explain, etc.) are relatively lawful, if the existence of the core disciplinary grounds is denied, the entire disciplinary dismissal may be found to be an unfair dismissal. Accordingly, from the very outset of the disciplinary process, employers should thoroughly investigate the facts and secure evidence, and, where necessary, consult sufficiently in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which the dismissal was found to be unfair because the disciplinary grounds were not recognized. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of Disciplinary Grounds The disciplinary ground asserted by the employer, “(1) obtaining unjust benefits by abusing one’s position,” could not be regarded as proven misconduct by the employee based solely on the evidence submitted. The disciplinary ground “(2) loss of trust due to false reporting, making it difficult to continue normal employment” could not be recognized as a disciplinary ground because it was entirely unclear what the employee had allegedly reported falsely. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Because the disciplinary grounds were not recognized, there was no need to discuss the appropriateness of the level of discipline. c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedures The employer notified the employee in writing of the convening of the Personnel Committee, specifying the disciplinary grounds; the employee submitted a written statement in lieu of appearing and thereby presented his or her explanation; and the employer provided a written statement of reasons for the disciplinary action specifying the disciplinary grounds. Accordingly, there was no procedural defect. [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Excessive Level of Discipline (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Level of Discipline (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Relief Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, non-recognition of disciplinary grounds (false reporting · unjust enrichment), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Decision Precedents” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Decision Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Level of Discipline (Serious Misconduct)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decision precedents relating to non-recognition of disciplinary grounds (false reporting · unjust enrichment) can be found under “List of Decision Precedents on Non-Recognition of Disciplinary Grounds (False Reporting · Unjust Enrichment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article