[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (unauthorized removal of confidential information).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2023 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-28 · Result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee, after being dismissed for disciplinary reasons, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employer asserted the following as grounds for discipline: causing mental distress, making threatening remarks toward persons involved in the workplace harassment investigation, posting false information about the company, confidential information, and hostile content on social media, and the unauthorized removal of company confidential information. The Labor Relations Commission found that three of the alleged grounds—causing mental distress, threatening remarks, and the social media postings—were difficult to recognize as valid disciplinary grounds, but held that the remaining misconduct, including the unauthorized removal of confidential information, was established. Ⅱ. Issue Summary The issue in this case is whether, even where some of the multiple disciplinary grounds are found to be unjustified, the remaining grounds—such as the unauthorized removal of company confidential information—alone are sufficient to justify the level of discipline of dismissal, and, accordingly, whether a remedy for unfair dismissal is available. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the unauthorized removal of company confidential information falls under a ground for disciplinary dismissal expressly stipulated in the work rules, that the company had repeatedly emphasized the importance of confidentiality through information security training, that such conduct could be viewed as having destroyed the relationship of trust between employer and employee to the extent that it would be difficult to restore, and that the remaining established acts of misconduct could not be regarded as minor. In light of the above, the panel held that, even if some of the disciplinary grounds were unjustified, the level of discipline in this dismissal was appropriate given the nature and degree of the remaining misconduct, and therefore could not be considered an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it should be borne in mind that even if some of the disciplinary grounds asserted by the employer are successfully challenged, a remedy for unfair dismissal may still be difficult to obtain where the remaining misconduct is of a serious nature. In particular, acts such as the unauthorized removal or leakage of company confidential information, or providing internal materials to external parties, are readily evaluated as serious violations that fundamentally undermine the relationship of trust between labor and management. Accordingly, even when raising issues related to workplace conflict or harassment, obligations relating to information security must be strictly observed. When posting company-related content on social media, employees should carefully consider the truthfulness, public interest, and manner of expression. To claim that such activity constitutes union activity or a legitimate raising of issues, the purpose and content must be consistent with the truth and must not unjustifiably infringe upon the company’s interests. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly specify “unauthorized removal or leakage of confidential information” as a concrete ground for disciplinary dismissal in the work rules and disciplinary regulations, and to conduct regular information security training, documenting such training so that it can be objectively proven. In addition, where multiple disciplinary grounds are applied at once, the employer should comprehensively review whether dismissal can be sustained on the remaining grounds alone even if some are found unjustified, taking into account the seriousness, intent, and repetitiveness of the misconduct, as well as whether the company has suffered damage and whether the relationship of trust has been destroyed, and then determine the appropriate level of discipline. Furthermore, when treating statements or conduct arising in the course of reporting or investigating workplace harassment as grounds for discipline, the employer should take care not to excessively infringe the principles of whistleblower protection or the scope of freedom of expression. It is helpful for preventing disputes to set out clear internal standards that distinguish such conduct from separate, serious misconduct such as the removal of confidential information. (ⓒ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 ... Of the three disciplinary grounds—causing mental distress, making threatening remarks to external investigators and HR personnel involved in the workplace harassment matter, and posting false information about the company, confidential information, and hostile content on social media—these were found to be unjustified. b. Whether the Level of Discipline Was Appropriate With respect to the disciplinary ground of unauthorized removal of company confidential information, this is expressly stipulated as a ground for disciplinary dismissal in the work rules, and, in light of the fact that its importance had been emphasized through information security training within the company, it can be viewed that such conduct led to a breakdown of the relationship of trust between the applicant and the respondent. Moreover, the remaining established grounds for discipline cannot be regarded as minor misconduct. Accordingly, the level of discipline imposed in this case is appropriate ... 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning ... Of the three disciplinary grounds—causing mental distress, making threatening remarks to external investigators and HR personnel involved in the workplace harassment matter, and posting false information about the company, confidential information, and hostile content on social media—these were found to be unjustified. b. Whether the Level of Discipline Was Appropriate With respect to the disciplinary ground of unauthorized removal of company confidential information, this is expressly stipulated as a ground for disciplinary dismissal in the work rules, and, in light of the fact that its importance had been emphasized through information security training within the company, it can be viewed that such conduct led to a breakdown of the relationship of trust between the applicant and the respondent. Moreover, the remaining established grounds for discipline cannot be regarded as minor misconduct. Accordingly, the level of discipline imposed in this case is appropriate ... / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case number: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (unauthorized removal of confidential information), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policies · 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&. ※ The previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Loss of Examination Answer Sheets)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (unauthorized removal of confidential information) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions on Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Removal of Confidential Information).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article