[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (loss of exam answer sheets).” Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae1810 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-28 · Case result: Dismissed Key Issue Summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the head of the examination headquarters, who was in charge of exam administration, lost exam answer sheets in the course of transporting them. The company imposed a severe disciplinary measure (dismissal, etc.) on the ground of violation of the rules of employment, and the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the existence of grounds for discipline and the appropriateness of the level of discipline (disciplinary severity), with the central dispute being whether the dismissal was unfair. In unfair dismissal disputes, labor relations commissions generally consider three elements in a comprehensive manner: grounds for discipline, procedure, and severity. In this case as well, a key issue was whether the level of discipline was socially acceptable and reasonable. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, where there is negligence resulting in the loss of exam answer sheets, the imposition of severe discipline such as dismissal on the head of the examination headquarters, who is responsible for exam administration, is justified in terms of both the grounds for discipline and the level of discipline. More specifically, first, whether the violation of the obligations relating to the transport and security of the answer sheets constitutes a ground for discipline under the rules of employment; and second, whether, in light of the reliability of the exam, the company’s reputation, and the monetary loss, the misconduct is sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that, given the nature of the employer’s business, the reliability of evaluation exams is a core asset; that the head of the examination headquarters bore final responsibility for the transport and security of the answer sheets but failed to exercise due care in the course of transport, resulting in the actual loss of answer sheets; and that this caused a substantial blow to the company’s credibility as well as real monetary loss and operational disruption due to compensation paid to examinees. In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the employee’s conduct fell within the grounds for discipline set out in Articles 33(10) and 33(22) of the rules of employment. Furthermore, with respect to the level of discipline, considering the decline in exam reliability and damage to the company’s external image, the scale of monetary and operational damage, and the level of public confidence required in the industry, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the level of discipline chosen by the employer as being so lacking in reasonableness as to be socially unacceptable. This reasoning structure follows the standard set by Supreme Court precedents, which examine whether there has been an abuse of disciplinary discretion by comprehensively considering the purpose and nature of the business, the employee’s duties and degree of responsibility, the circumstances and consequences of the misconduct, and the impact on corporate order. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees engaged in work where “trust” is central—such as examinations and evaluations, security, or asset management—should be mindful that even simple negligence may be assessed as a serious ground for discipline. In particular, those in positions with managerial or supervisory responsibility should recognize that, regardless of whether actual damage occurs, the “weight of responsibility” is assessed far more heavily than for ordinary employees. To contest an unfair dismissal, it is important to present concrete evidence regarding the circumstances of the incident, efforts made to fulfill one’s duty of care, efforts to minimize and remedy the damage after the incident, and one’s past work attitude and disciplinary record. These are key materials for disputing the seriousness of the grounds for discipline and the excessiveness of the disciplinary severity. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly specify in the rules of employment and disciplinary severity guidelines the types and levels of discipline applicable to “violations of security and management obligations in exam/evaluation work.” Where, due to the nature of the industry, exam reliability is directly linked to the company’s credibility, it is easier to obtain recognition of the legitimacy of disciplinary measures at the labor relations commission or court stage if the potential scale of damage and the impact on corporate order arising from incidents such as the loss of answer sheets are specifically reflected in the severity criteria. In imposing discipline, employers should comprehensively review: (1) the level of public interest and trust required in the industry; (2) the employee’s position and scope of responsibility; (3) the circumstances of the incident and the degree of negligence; (4) the actual damage incurred and whether it has been remedied; (5) the employee’s past disciplinary record and work attitude; and (6) consistency with similar cases. On that basis, employers should examine whether dismissal is justified as a “last resort” in light of social norms. This is a key point in preventing disputes over abuse of disciplinary discretion. As can be seen from this case, in which the employer prevailed in an unfair dismissal/disciplinary dispute, it is very important, for both dispute prevention and defense, to obtain advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law& in advance to refine the rules of employment and disciplinary severity standards, and, when an incident occurs, to organize the facts systematically in line with the relevant legal principles. 2. Matters Determined (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee, as the head of the examination headquarters responsible for exam administration, bore responsibility for the transport and security of answer sheets and related materials. In light of the fact that the employee failed to exercise sufficient due care in the course of transporting the answer sheets, this constitutes a violation of Articles 33(10) and 33(22) of the rules of employment, and grounds for discipline are therefore established. (b) Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Given that, due to the nature of the employer’s business, the reliability of evaluation exams is important, and that the loss of answer sheets, which is the ground for discipline, could inflict significant damage on the company’s credibility, and that, following the loss of the answer sheets, monetary loss and operational disruption occurred in the course of compensating examinees, the level of discipline is… 3. Summary of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee, as the head of the examination headquarters responsible for exam administration, bore responsibility for the transport and security of answer sheets and related materials. In light of the fact that the employee failed to exercise sufficient due care in the course of transporting the answer sheets, this constitutes a violation of Articles 33(10) and 33(22) of the rules of employment, and grounds for discipline are therefore established. (b) Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Given that, due to the nature of the employer’s business, the reliability of evaluation exams is important, and that the loss of answer sheets, which is the ground for discipline, could inflict significant damage on the company’s credibility, and that, following the loss of the answer sheets, monetary loss and operational disruption occurred in the course of compensating examinees, the level of discipline is… / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Existence of Urgent Managerial Necessity (Abolition of Leasing Business Team)’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Existence of Dismissal (Childcare Teacher at Daycare Center)’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (loss of exam answer sheets), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Existence of Dismissal (Childcare Teacher at Daycare Center),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (loss of exam answer sheets) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Loss of Exam Answer Sheets).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article