[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (language institute tuition overcharging).” Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae159 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-17 · Disposition: Fully Upheld Summary of Key Issues: A. Justifiability of Disciplinary Grounds Among the acts of a particular employee identified by the employer under the heading “agenda items,” the following were recognized as grounds for discipline: listing a 25‑minute class as a 50‑minute class and thereby overcharging tuition; conducting classes without reporting them after registering center staff as members; and circumventing the “Happy Time” operating rules and conducting classes in violation of the prescribed time slots. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, an employee at a language‑institute‑type business was given a severe disciplinary sanction of a two‑month suspension. The employee then filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. While the Commission accepted several acts of misconduct alleged by the employer as constituting disciplinary grounds, it focused on the lawfulness of the level of discipline imposed and of the procedures followed in determining whether the dismissal was unfair. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where some of the disciplinary grounds are recognized—namely, listing a 25‑minute class as a 50‑minute class and thereby overcharging tuition, conducting classes without reporting them after registering center staff as members, and circumventing the “Happy Time” operating rules and conducting classes in violation of the prescribed time slots—the immediate imposition of a two‑month suspension on an employee with no prior disciplinary record constitutes an abuse of disciplinary authority, and whether, including the disciplinary procedures, this suspension can be regarded as an unfair dismissal (unfair discipline). Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case held that, among the various acts the employer raised as “agenda items,” the following constituted grounds for discipline: overcharging tuition by falsely recording class time; conducting classes without reporting them after registering center staff as members; and circumventing the “Happy Time” operating rules and conducting classes in violation of the prescribed time slots. Even assuming that some of the disciplinary grounds were established, the Commission found that the dismissal was, in light of the following factors, objectively and markedly excessive and beyond the scope of the employer’s discretion: the employer violated the step‑by‑step disciplinary rules by immediately imposing a severe sanction; the employee had no prior disciplinary record; there were no clear internal standards for determining the level of discipline; the employer’s statements about the risk of recurrence were inconsistent; and the sanction was disproportionate when compared with the treatment of identical or similar violations. In assessing the appropriateness of the level of discipline, the Commission applied the general principles set out by the Supreme Court, namely that the content and nature of the grounds for discipline, the characteristics of the duties involved, the objectives of maintaining workplace discipline through the sanction, the employee’s past work attitude, and parity with other employees must all be considered comprehensively. In light of these circumstances, the two‑month suspension was deemed objectively and clearly excessive and therefore an abuse of disciplinary authority amounting to unfair discipline. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if some fault or rule violations are acknowledged, that alone does not automatically justify the imposition of a severe disciplinary sanction. If the level of discipline is markedly harsh by social standards and is disproportionate when compared with the company’s internal disciplinary standards or past cases, the employee may seek correction by filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal (unfair discipline) with the Labor Relations Commission. In addition, if there are defects in the disciplinary procedures (such as failure to provide an opportunity to be heard, improper operation of the disciplinary committee, or failure to meet quorum requirements for resolutions), those defects can themselves serve as important grounds for challenging the validity of the disciplinary measure. Therefore, upon receiving notice of discipline, employees should carefully record the procedural steps taken and the explanations provided by the employer. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even where an employee’s misconduct is established, it is essential to ensure that the step‑by‑step disciplinary rules and internal standards for determining the level of discipline are followed, and that the severity of the sanction is proportionate to the degree of misconduct. In particular, when imposing a severe sanction such as suspension or dismissal on an employee with no prior disciplinary record, there is a high risk that the measure will be deemed an abuse of disciplinary authority unless the employer secures concrete evidence regarding parity with similar cases, the likelihood of recurrence, and the necessity of the disciplinary objective. Moreover, neglecting formal requirements such as specifying the grounds for discipline, complying with the limitation period for discipline, and following proper disciplinary committee procedures can render the disciplinary measure itself invalid. Accordingly, before imposing discipline, employers should consult with professional labor consultants, such as those at Labor Law Firm Law&, to review and organize the disciplinary grounds, the criteria for determining the level of discipline, and compliance with procedural requirements in advance. This decision once again confirms that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the appropriateness of the level of discipline and compliance with procedures are just as important as the existence of grounds for discipline. As the Labor Relations Commission and the courts closely scrutinize the reasons and standards actually considered by the employer at the time of the disciplinary measure, and whether the sanction is objectively and clearly excessive by social standards, both employees and employers should systematically organize relevant materials and facts from the outset of a case. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Justifiability of Disciplinary Grounds Among the acts of a particular employee identified by the employer under the heading “agenda items,” the following were recognized as grounds for discipline: listing a 25‑minute class as a 50‑minute class and thereby overcharging tuition; conducting classes without reporting them after registering center staff as members; and circumventing the “Happy Time” operating rules and conducting classes in violation of the prescribed time slots. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Even assuming that some of the grounds are established, in light of the violation of the step‑by‑step punishment rules, the absence of any prior disciplinary record, the lack of standards for determining the level of discipline, the employer’s statements that contradict its claim of a risk of recurrence, and parity with other cases involving the same violations, the two‑month suspension is deemed markedly excessive by social standards and beyond the scope of the employer’s discretion. C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Justifiability of Disciplinary Grounds Among the acts of a particular employee identified by the employer under the heading “agenda items,” the following were recognized as grounds for discipline: listing a 25‑minute class as a 50‑minute class and thereby overcharging tuition; conducting classes without reporting them after registering center staff as members; and circumventing the “Happy Time” operating rules and conducting classes in violation of the prescribed time slots. B. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Even assuming that some of the grounds are established, in light of the violation of the step‑by‑step punishment rules, the absence of any prior disciplinary record, the lack of standards for determining the level of discipline, the employer’s statements that contradict its claim of a risk of recurrence, and parity with other cases involving the same violations, the two‑month suspension is deemed markedly excessive by social standards and beyond the scope of the employer’s discretion. C. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Fixed‑Term Employee (Three‑Month Ultra‑Short‑Term Contract)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Dismissal of Petition (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Petition Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (language institute tuition overcharging), disciplinary dismissal (dispute over level of discipline), 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, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Formation of Hiring Commitment (No Agreement on Start Date)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary sanction (language institute tuition overcharging) can be found under “List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Language Institute Tuition Overcharging).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article