[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary measure (visit to adult entertainment establishment · false statement).” Decision Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해1800 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-28 · Outcome: Application fully upheld Summary of Key Issues: a. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s visit to an adult entertainment establishment, making false statements during the company’s investigation, and asking a colleague to make a false statement constitute grounds for discipline under the company’s rules of employment. b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline In light of the absence of any prior disciplinary record, the circumstances that the conduct was partly in compliance with a superior’s instructions, and the fact that the employee voluntarily disclosed the facts and showed remorse, the level of discipline was found to be excessive. c. — 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer imposed a severe disciplinary sanction on an employee on the grounds that the employee visited an adult entertainment establishment, made false statements during the company’s internal investigation, and requested a colleague to make false statements. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, arguing that the dismissal constituted an excessive disciplinary measure. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the existence of grounds for discipline, but, considering that the employee had no prior disciplinary history, that there were circumstances involving compliance with a superior’s instructions, and that the employee voluntarily confessed the facts and showed a repentant attitude, held that the level of discipline was excessive. The Commission therefore fully upheld the employee’s application and granted a remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where grounds for discipline such as a visit to an adult entertainment establishment and false statements during an investigation are recognized, whether dismissal (or a similarly severe disciplinary sanction) constitutes an excessively harsh measure that is, in light of social norms, clearly lacking in reasonableness.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the visit to an adult entertainment establishment, the false statements, and the act of asking a colleague to make false statements all constitute grounds for discipline under the rules of employment. However, given that the employee had no prior disciplinary record, that there were aspects of the conduct attributable to following a superior’s instructions, and that the employee ultimately voluntarily disclosed the facts and showed remorse, the choice of the most severe level of discipline, in light of the content and nature of the misconduct, was out of balance with the grounds for discipline and constituted an excessively harsh sanction that, in light of social norms, clearly lacked reasonableness. The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be unfair on the basis that the level of discipline was excessive and amounted to an abuse of the employer’s discretionary power to impose discipline. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that, on the premise that misconduct such as visiting an adult entertainment establishment or making false statements can constitute grounds for discipline under the rules of employment, one can still contest to the end whether dismissal is warranted, that is, whether the level of discipline is excessive. In particular, the presence or absence of prior disciplinary history, the circumstances involving a superior’s instructions or organizational culture, and whether the employee voluntarily reported the misconduct and the degree of remorse are key factors in assessing the severity of the disciplinary measure. When filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to organize and submit these circumstances in concrete detail. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly define in the rules of employment and HR regulations that conduct such as entering adult entertainment establishments, making false statements, and attempting to induce colleagues to do so constitutes grounds for discipline, and to reasonably differentiate the corresponding levels of discipline (reprimand, pay cut, suspension, dismissal, etc.) through grading criteria. In addition, for the most severe sanctions that terminate the employment relationship, such as disciplinary dismissal, the employer must re-examine whether the misconduct is of such a degree that, in light of social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained, and whether the measure complies with the principles of proportionality and equity in view of the content, motive, and circumstances of the misconduct, the employee’s prior disciplinary history, and whether the employee has shown remorse. The employer must also ensure full procedural fairness, including convening and notifying the disciplinary committee, and providing the employee with an opportunity to attend and present explanations. Establishing such standards and procedures in advance is of great help in satisfying, in future unfair dismissal disputes, the requirement of “reasonableness between the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary measure” as demanded by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&) 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s visit to an adult entertainment establishment, making false statements during the investigation, and requesting a colleague to make false statements constitute grounds for discipline under the rules of employment. b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline In light of the absence of any prior disciplinary record, the circumstances that the conduct was partly in compliance with a superior’s instructions, and the fact that the employee voluntarily disclosed the facts and showed remorse, the level of discipline was found to be excessive. c. Legality of the disciplinary procedure The employer, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, notified the employee of the convening of the disciplinary committee, and the employee attended the disciplinary committee and was given an opportunity to explain. Therefore, the disciplinary procedure was lawful. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee’s visit to an adult entertainment establishment, making false statements during the investigation, and requesting a colleague to make false statements constitute grounds for discipline under the rules of employment. b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline In light of the absence of any prior disciplinary record, the circumstances that the conduct was partly in compliance with a superior’s instructions, and the fact that the employee voluntarily disclosed the facts and showed remorse, the level of discipline was found to be excessive. c. Legality of the disciplinary procedure The employer, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, notified the employee of the convening of the disciplinary committee, and the employee attended the disciplinary committee and was given an opportunity to explain. Therefore, the disciplinary procedure was lawful. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Employer Domination/Interference (Transportation Division Head Encouraging Union Membership)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case No.: Dismissal of Application - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary measure (visit to adult entertainment establishment · false statement), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Limitation on Application of the Law (Business with Fewer than 5 Employees)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary measure (visit to adult entertainment establishment · false statement) can be found together in the “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Visit to Adult Entertainment Establishment · False Statement).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article