[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “dismissal for sexual misconduct (sexual intercourse with a colleague without consent).” Decision date: 2026-08-07 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1980 Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action The employee, who is married, had sexual intercourse with a colleague at a motel and is under investigation on suspicion of quasi-rape. He admits that the sexual intercourse was not based on explicit consent. Accordingly, his conduct constitutes misconduct in violation of the personnel regulations, code of ethics, and service operation guidelines, and grounds for discipline are recognized. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline The case concerns sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent, which, following a police investigation, was referred to the prosecution with a recommendation to indict. Under the service operation guidelines and other provisions on disciplinary sanctions, where “the degree of misconduct is extreme and there is intent or gross negligence,” dismissal from office is contemplated as a sanction. In light of these standards, and given that the matter is such that it is difficult to continue the employment relationship under social norms, … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerns a married employee who, after having sexual intercourse with a colleague at a motel, became subject to a criminal investigation on suspicion of quasi-rape, following which the employer imposed disciplinary dismissal. In the unfair dismissal relief case (2026Buhae1980), the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined whether there was a violation of the personnel regulations, code of ethics, and service operation guidelines, as well as the appropriateness of the level of discipline and the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in relation to sexual misconduct in the form of sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent, the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the level of discipline, and the lawfulness of the personnel committee procedures are all satisfied such that the disciplinary dismissal is justified. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employee, despite being married, had sexual intercourse with a colleague at a motel; that the incident is under criminal investigation on suspicion of quasi-rape; that the employee himself admits that “the sexual intercourse was not based on explicit consent”; and that, as a result, his conduct constitutes serious misconduct amounting to sexual misconduct under the personnel regulations, code of ethics, and service operation guidelines. It further noted that, because the sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent led to the case being referred from the police to the prosecution with a recommendation to indict, and because the service operation guidelines and other provisions on disciplinary sanctions provide that “where the degree of misconduct is extreme and there is intent or gross negligence,” dismissal from office is contemplated, the matter is, even in light of those standards, of such a nature that it is difficult to continue the employment relationship under social norms. Accordingly, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case could not be regarded as a disciplinary exercise of the employer’s discretion that is manifestly unreasonable under social norms, nor could it be deemed clearly unfair as an abuse or excess of discretionary authority. In addition, the Commission found no unlawfulness in the disciplinary procedures, taking into account that the employer notified the employee in advance of the convening of the personnel committee and afforded him an opportunity to present his explanation; that, at the personnel committee, the employee actively presented his explanation with full awareness of the specific facts; and that no serious defects were revealed in relation to the composition of the disciplinary committee or the rules on recusal and challenge. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is not sufficient to assume that sexual remarks or conduct occurring inside or outside the workplace fall solely within the realm of private life. You must bear in mind that sexual intercourse with a colleague without consent can constitute a violation of the company’s personnel regulations and code of ethics and may directly lead to dismissal. In particular, where criminal proceedings progress to investigation and indictment on charges such as quasi-rape, the Labor Relations Commission is likely to view the seriousness of the misconduct very strictly and to recognize the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly define sexual misconduct—such as sexual harassment, sexual violence, and sexual intercourse without consent—as grounds for discipline, and to specify in the rules of employment and service guidelines detailed standards for disciplinary sanctions that allow for dismissal from office or termination depending on the degree of misconduct. Furthermore, if procedural fairness is not ensured—such as by providing advance notice of the convening of the personnel committee, affording an opportunity to present explanations, and complying with rules on recusal and challenge of disciplinary committee members—then, even where the misconduct is serious, the disciplinary action may be rendered void due to serious procedural defects. Accordingly, employers should design and operate disciplinary procedures with the advice of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that disciplinary dismissal based on misconduct consisting of sexual intercourse with a colleague without consent was justified. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Existence of grounds for disciplinary action The employee, who is married, had sexual intercourse with a colleague at a motel and is under investigation on suspicion of quasi-rape. He admits that the sexual intercourse was not explicitly consensual. Accordingly, his conduct constitutes misconduct in violation of the personnel regulations, code of ethics, and service operation guidelines, and grounds for discipline are recognized. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline The case concerns sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent, which, following a police investigation, was referred to the prosecution with a recommendation to indict. Under the service operation guidelines and other provisions on disciplinary sanctions, this falls under a case where “the degree of misconduct is extreme and there is intent or gross negligence,” and thus constitutes grounds for dismissal from office. Therefore, the employer’s dismissal cannot be regarded as clearly unfair as an abuse or excess of discretionary authority. C. Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedures The employer notified the employee in advance of the convening of the personnel committee and afforded him an opportunity to present his explanation. At the personnel committee, he was aware of the specific grounds and actively presented his explanation. Accordingly, no procedural defects were found. [Further Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Level of Disciplinary Sanction (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Excessive Level of Disciplinary Sanction (Negligent Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Relief Interest and Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, dismissal for sexual misconduct (sexual intercourse with a colleague without consent), disciplinary dismissal, others, 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 Decisions” series. ※ The list of decisions related to dismissal for sexual misconduct (sexual intercourse with a colleague without consent) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Dismissal for Sexual Misconduct (Sexual Intercourse with a Colleague Without Consent).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article