This case on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized substitute lessons – managerial responsibility)” ended with a full victory for the employee (full acceptance of the claim). [Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed (full acceptance) on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized substitute lessons – managerial responsibility).” Adjudicating body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae433 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-26 · Result: Full acceptance Summary of key issue: A. Existence of grounds for discipline Although the employee, as the general team leader of the Life Sports Team, was in a position bearing responsibility for the management and supervision of subordinate staff, unauthorized substitute lessons occurred. This means the employee’s managerial and supervisory responsibility is recognized and constitutes a ground for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s rules of employment and personnel regulations. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, an employee who had been working as the general team leader of the Life Sports Team was dismissed for cause on the ground that unauthorized substitute lessons had occurred by an instructor under his supervision. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged that grounds for discipline existed, but focused its review on whether dismissal as the level of discipline was justified, and ultimately rendered a decision fully in favor of the employee. The employee applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that he was not the person who directly engaged in the misconduct of unauthorized substitute lessons, and that even though he conducted the necessary investigation and reporting afterward, dismissal was an excessively severe measure. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “Although grounds for discipline are recognized because the team leader failed to fully perform his managerial and supervisory duties, is dismissal—the most severe disciplinary measure—socially acceptable and appropriate as a disciplinary level even in a situation where he did not directly commit the misconduct?” In particular, the core question was how to reflect, in the determination of the disciplinary level, the difference in degree of responsibility between the actual wrongdoer who conducted the unauthorized substitute lessons and the team leader as the next-level supervisor. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case recognized that the employee, as the general team leader of the Life Sports Team, was in a position bearing responsibility for the management and supervision of subordinate staff, and that, given that unauthorized substitute lessons occurred nonetheless, this constituted a ground for discipline under the employer’s rules of employment and personnel regulations. However, the panel found that the employee, as the next-level supervisor, was not the direct wrongdoer in the unauthorized substitute lessons, that there was no evidence he had prior knowledge of or gave approval for such conduct, that he carried out necessary follow-up measures such as investigation and reporting after becoming aware of the facts, and that, despite the difference in the degree of involvement in and seriousness of responsibility for the misconduct between the actual wrongdoer and the employee, the same or an unduly severe level of discipline was imposed on the employee. In light of these factors, the panel held that dismissal was an excessively severe disciplinary measure that exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretion. In view of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence that, in determining the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal, one must comprehensively consider various circumstances—such as the employee’s position and job duties, the motive and background of the misconduct, the impact on corporate order, and the employee’s past work attitude—to determine whether, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained, the dismissal in this case was found to be an unfair disciplinary measure. The Commission held that the dismissal was a disciplinary level that had clearly lost its appropriateness under social norms. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even where discipline is imposed based on managerial and supervisory responsibility, it is crucial to note that the key factors in determining the level of discipline are: whether the employee personally engaged in the misconduct, whether the employee had prior knowledge of or approved it, and how faithfully the employee carried out post-incident measures (investigation, reporting, and efforts to prevent recurrence). If the employee’s degree of responsibility is lighter than that of the actual wrongdoer, and the extent of damage or disruption to corporate order is not serious, yet the employee is immediately subjected to severe discipline such as dismissal or discharge, the employee should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, focusing on whether the disciplinary level is clearly excessive under social norms. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is possible to hold managers such as team leaders and general managers responsible for management and supervision. However, it is necessary to differentiate the level of discipline by distinguishing, among others, the degree of involvement, intent, planning, and benefit obtained between the actual wrongdoer and the managerial staff. In addition, employers should reasonably establish in advance the standards for disciplinary levels in the rules of employment and personnel regulations, and then examine whether those standards were applied consistently to multiple subjects of discipline, and whether mitigating factors such as recovery of damage and sincere post-incident cooperation were sufficiently reflected. Employers should be aware that, if dismissal is chosen as an excessively severe measure only for a specific individual in the same matter, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find unfair dismissal due to abuse of discretion. This case demonstrates that, separate from the existence of grounds for discipline, the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal is ultimately determined by the “appropriateness of the disciplinary level.” In similar cases, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to carefully review the fairness of the disciplinary level and its reasonableness under social norms. 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural Progress A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline Although the employee, as the general team leader of the Life Sports Team, was in a position bearing responsibility for the management and supervision of subordinate staff, unauthorized substitute lessons occurred. This means the employee’s managerial and supervisory responsibility is recognized and constitutes a ground for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s rules of employment and personnel regulations. B. Appropriateness of the Disciplinary Level The employee, as the next-level supervisor, was not the wrongdoer who engaged in the unauthorized substitute lessons, and it was not confirmed that he had prior knowledge of or approved such conduct. After becoming aware of the facts, he carried out necessary follow-up measures such as investigation and reporting. Despite differences in the degree of involvement in and seriousness of responsibility for the misconduct, the same or an unduly severe level of discipline was imposed on him, and… 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of Grounds for Discipline Although the employee, as the general team leader of the Life Sports Team, was in a position bearing responsibility for the management and supervision of subordinate staff, unauthorized substitute lessons occurred. This means the employee’s managerial and supervisory responsibility is recognized and constitutes a ground for discipline as stipulated in the employer’s rules of employment and personnel regulations. B. Appropriateness of the Disciplinary Level The employee, as the next-level supervisor, was not the wrongdoer who engaged in the unauthorized substitute lessons, and it was not confirmed that he had prior knowledge of or approved such conduct. After becoming aware of the facts, he carried out necessary follow-up measures such as investigation and reporting. Despite differences in the degree of involvement in and seriousness of responsibility for the misconduct, the same or an unduly severe level of discipline was imposed on him, and… / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Related to Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Related to Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld - ‘Unfair Dismissal Case Related to Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized substitute lessons – managerial responsibility), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy / non-compliance with work orders, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Related to Mistaken Belief in Existence of Dismissal (Interview with Nutrition Director),” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (unauthorized substitute lessons – managerial responsibility) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Unauthorized Substitute Lessons – Managerial Responsibility).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article