[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary sanction level (sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent).” Adjudicating Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1980 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-07 · Case Result: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: … Grounds for discipline were found to exist. B. Appropriateness of the level of disciplinary sanction: The case involved sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent, and as a result of the police investigation, the case was referred to the prosecution with an opinion for indictment. Under the Service Operation Guidelines and other provisions on disciplinary sanction levels, this constituted misconduct of an extremely serious degree committed with intent or gross negligence, falling under grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the employer’s dismissal could not be deemed clearly unfair as an abuse or excess of its discretionary authority. C. Legality of the disciplinary procedure: … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee who was dismissed for cause on the allegation of having sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the employer abused its discretionary authority to dismiss, examining in particular the internal standards for disciplinary sanction levels under the Service Operation Guidelines and whether the disciplinary procedures had been properly followed. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case were whether, in a situation where sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent was at issue, a dismissal for cause that falls under grounds for dismissal under the Service Operation Guidelines constitutes an unfair dismissal that is manifestly unreasonable in terms of the level of disciplinary sanction by social norms, and whether the personnel committee procedures were conducted lawfully. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that the conduct involved sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent; that the nature and degree of the misconduct were so serious that the police investigation resulted in a referral to the prosecution with an opinion for indictment; and that the Service Operation Guidelines and other standards for disciplinary sanction levels provide that “where the degree of misconduct is extremely serious and there is intent or gross negligence,” the employee is subject to dismissal. In light of these factors, the panel found that the employer’s standards for disciplinary sanction levels themselves could not readily be regarded as manifestly unreasonable or as a means to exclude a particular employee; that the conduct constituted misconduct so serious that, by social norms, it would be difficult to continue the employment relationship; and that, at the personnel committee, the employee was given an active opportunity to present explanations while being aware of the specific grounds. Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was based on established grounds for discipline, that the level of disciplinary sanction could not be viewed as an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary authority, and that no material defects were found in the disciplinary procedures. Therefore, the dismissal did not constitute an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, when workplace sex-related incidents are linked to criminal proceedings, it must be borne in mind that the employer’s disciplinary sanction may be imposed very strictly, independently of the investigative authorities’ determinations. In particular, where “sex-related misconduct” is expressly stipulated in the rules of employment or service guidelines as grounds for dismissal, there is a high likelihood that the continuation of the employment relationship will be deemed difficult by social norms. Accordingly, from the early stages, employees should systematically prepare a defense strategy by organizing the facts, preparing statements, and, where necessary, seeking expert assistance. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to establish concrete standards for disciplinary sanction levels in relation to workplace sex-related misconduct, such as sexual harassment and sexual violence, and to clearly specify whether dismissal will be imposed based on factors such as the seriousness of the misconduct, intent, and likelihood of recurrence. In addition, records should be kept demonstrating that procedural rights were guaranteed, including notice of the convening of the personnel committee, ensuring that the employee could recognize the alleged facts giving rise to discipline, and providing an opportunity to present explanations. Such records help reduce disputes over procedural defects before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. This type of decision once again confirms that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the seriousness of the grounds for discipline, the internal standards for disciplinary sanction levels, and compliance with personnel committee procedures are the core elements of review. To prevent disputes in personnel and labor matters such as unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal, it is particularly important to properly establish the rules of employment at the outset and to conduct prompt legal review when an incident occurs. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History … Grounds for discipline were found to exist. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Disciplinary Sanction The case involved sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent, and as a result of the police investigation, the case was referred to the prosecution with an opinion for indictment. Under the Service Operation Guidelines and other provisions on disciplinary sanction levels, this constituted misconduct of an extremely serious degree committed with intent or gross negligence, falling under grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the employer’s dismissal could not be deemed clearly unfair as an abuse or excess of its discretionary authority. C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure The employer notified the employee in advance of the convening of the personnel committee and provided an opportunity to present explanations, and the employee, being aware of the specific grounds, actively presented explanations before the personnel committee. Accordingly, no procedural defects were found. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings … Grounds for discipline were found to exist. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Disciplinary Sanction The case involved sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent, and as a result of the police investigation, the case was referred to the prosecution with an opinion for indictment. Under the Service Operation Guidelines and other provisions on disciplinary sanction levels, this constituted misconduct of an extremely serious degree committed with intent or gross negligence, falling under grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the employer’s dismissal could not be deemed clearly unfair as an abuse or excess of its discretionary authority. C. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure The employer notified the employee in advance of the convening of the personnel committee and provided an opportunity to present explanations, and the employee, being aware of the specific grounds, actively presented explanations before the personnel committee. Accordingly, no procedural defects were found. / [Related Decisions] - “Disciplinary Sanction Level (Violation of Standard Construction Methods by Internet AS Technician)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed - “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary sanction level (sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent), dismissal for cause, 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 previous article, “Disciplinary Sanction Level (Violation of Standard Construction Methods by Internet AS Technician) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary sanction level (sexual intercourse with a colleague without explicit consent) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Sanction Level (Sexual Intercourse with a Colleague Without Explicit Consent).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article