[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “non-recognition of disciplinary grounds (false reporting · improper gain).” Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해489 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-30 · Case Outcome: Full Recognition Summary of Key Issues: A. Existence of Disciplinary Grounds The employer’s alleged disciplinary ground “① obtaining improper gains by using job duties” could not be regarded as proven misconduct by the employee based solely on the evidence submitted. The alleged disciplinary ground “② difficulty in continuing normal employment due to diminished trust caused by false reporting” 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 As the disciplinary grounds were not recognized, there was no need to examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline. … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer dismissed the employee for cause, citing the acquisition of improper gains by using job duties and false reporting. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the evidence submitted and the overall disciplinary procedure, and then determined whether the dismissal was justified. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is: “Whether a disciplinary dismissal can be regarded as a justifiable dismissal when the employer’s allegations of obtaining improper gains in the course of duties and of false reporting are not substantiated in specific and objective terms.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings With respect to the alleged disciplinary ground that the employee “obtained improper gains by using job duties,” the adjudicating panel found that, based on the evidence presented, it was difficult to conclude that the employee had engaged in any misconduct. As for the alleged disciplinary ground that “trust was diminished due to false reporting,” the panel found that it was not specified what the employee had allegedly reported falsely or in what manner, and therefore this could not be recognized as a disciplinary ground. Given that the disciplinary grounds themselves were not established, there was no further need to examine the appropriateness of the level of discipline. Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair because no disciplinary grounds existed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to remember that an employer cannot impose disciplinary dismissal based merely on vague suspicions or abstract expressions; the employer must prove the disciplinary grounds through concrete facts and evidence. During the explanation or defense process before the disciplinary committee, the employee should carefully check which facts are being challenged and what evidence the company is presenting, and should secure objective materials such as emails, messenger records, and work reports. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, before imposing a serious measure such as disciplinary dismissal, it is necessary to specify in detail the content, timing, and method of the alleged misconduct and to sufficiently collect objective evidence to support it. The employer should also clearly notify the employee in writing of the disciplinary grounds, and, by consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, pre‑review the legal validity and provability of the disciplinary grounds, which will greatly help prevent disputes. In this type of unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission consistently confirms that the burden of proof regarding the existence of disciplinary grounds lies with the employer, and that if the disciplinary grounds are not specifically identified and proven, the dismissal will be found unfair without any need to examine the level of discipline or the procedure. Unlike redundancy dismissals, disciplinary dismissals are sanctions for individual employee misconduct, so both employers and employees must exercise particular care in managing the facts and evidence. 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Existence of Disciplinary Grounds The employer’s alleged disciplinary ground “① obtaining improper gains by using job duties” could not be regarded as proven misconduct by the employee based solely on the evidence submitted, and the alleged disciplinary ground “② difficulty in continuing normal employment due to diminished trust caused by false reporting” 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 As the disciplinary grounds were not recognized, there was no need to discuss the appropriateness of the level of discipline. C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure The employer notified the employee in writing, stating the disciplinary grounds, to appear before the personnel committee, and the employee submitted a written statement of explanation… 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Existence of Disciplinary Grounds The employer’s alleged disciplinary ground “① obtaining improper gains by using job duties” could not be regarded as proven misconduct by the employee based solely on the evidence submitted, and the alleged disciplinary ground “② difficulty in continuing normal employment due to diminished trust caused by false reporting” 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 As the disciplinary grounds were not recognized, there was no need to discuss the appropriateness of the level of discipline. C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure The employer notified the employee in writing, stating the disciplinary grounds, to appear before the personnel committee, and the employee submitted a written statement of explanation… / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Disciplinary Measure (Serious Misconduct)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Outcome: Original Decision Upheld - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, non-recognition of disciplinary grounds (false reporting · improper gain), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “‘Disciplinary Measure (Serious Misconduct)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to non-recognition of disciplinary grounds (false reporting · improper gain) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Non-Recognition of Disciplinary Grounds (False Reporting · Improper Gain).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article