Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Concurrent Employment and Receipt of Money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class)” (Unfair Dismissal 71)
- Date2026/01/10 23:36
- Read 216
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision relating to “concurrent employment and receipt of money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025BuHae3378 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.21
- Summary of outcome:
A. Whether the school has standing as a party: As the school is a subordinate body of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, which, as a local government, has standing as the employer-respondent, the school itself does not have independent standing as a party.
B. Justifiability of suspension from duty: The employee operated a corporate body, the Youth Soccer Academy, without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee of a national/public school operated a corporate body, the Youth Soccer Academy, without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment, and separately operated a soccer hobby class for students without the school’s approval, during which he received money from parents. For these acts he was subjected to disciplinary suspension and dismissal.
The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy, claiming that the disciplinary measures constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application in Case 2025BuHae3378.
In the course of the proceedings, the following issues arose: whether the school had standing as an independent employer-respondent (party) in the Labor Relations Commission procedure; the justifiability of the suspension; and the justifiability of the final dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: “Where an employee of a school belonging to a local government operates a corporate body and a hobby class and receives money without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment, (i) whether the school has standing as an employer/party, and (ii) whether suspension and dismissal on the grounds of such misconduct are justified in terms of the level of discipline and the procedures followed.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel held that the school was merely a subordinate body of the local government, and that standing as the employer-respondent under the employment contract belonged to the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Accordingly, the school itself did not have independent standing as a party.
The panel found the suspension to be justified on the following grounds: the employee himself admitted that he had operated the corporate body, the Youth Soccer Academy, without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment; even if the concurrent employment was not for the purpose of personal profit, it clearly violated the duty to faithfully provide labor and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment; mitigating factors had already been taken into account at the time of discipline so that the level of suspension could not be viewed as excessive; and no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures.
In addition, the panel held the dismissal to be justified and not an unfair dismissal, based on the following: the employee fully admitted the facts relating to the operation of the hobby class and other matters connected to the dismissal; the receipt of money from parents while operating a hobby class for students without the school’s approval requires strict sanctions in light of the nature and public character of educational institutions; in view of prior disciplinary precedents involving suspension, the level of dismissal could not be considered excessive; and no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures leading up to the dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where there are rules prohibiting concurrent employment or a prior approval system, you must obtain prior approval from the employer (local government, office of education, etc.) for any concurrent employment, even if it is for a public-interest purpose or generates only modest income. In particular, in schools and educational institutions, operating separate programs for students and parents and receiving money in connection with such programs may be evaluated as undermining public character and trust, regardless of whether there was “personal profit-seeking.” If carried out without prior approval, such conduct may justify dismissal.
Even where the facts are admitted in the course of disciplinary proceedings, it is necessary to systematically explain and substantiate the circumstances of the concurrent employment, how any income was used, whether there was any actual damage to the school, and prior disciplinary precedents, and to actively argue and prove that the level of discipline is excessive. In similar disputes, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, who are familiar with trends in decisions of the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, and to design a defense strategy from the early stages.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the perspective of employers, schools, and local governments, it is important to clearly set out in the rules of employment and personnel regulations: prohibitions on concurrent employment; procedures for obtaining prior approval for concurrent employment; and prohibitions on receiving money in connection with students or customers. These rules should also be sufficiently explained and taught in practice on a regular basis. In particular, in structures such as national/public schools where the administrative entity and its subordinate bodies are separated, it is necessary to clarify in advance who is the “employer” under the employment contract and who will be the respondent/defendant in Labor Relations Commission and court proceedings, in order to reduce unnecessary disputes over standing as a party.
To ensure the justifiability of the level of discipline, it is advisable to整理 disciplinary precedents for similar cases and to establish disciplinary standards that comprehensively take into account the nature of the misconduct, intent, amount of money involved, degree of impairment of public character, and the employee’s attitude. During the disciplinary process, investigations of relevant facts, opportunities for explanation, operation of the disciplinary committee, and other procedures should be conducted in accordance with the regulations. Where necessary, employers should seek advice from labor law experts to manage risks so that layoffs or severe disciplinary measures are not later overturned as unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the school has standing as a party
As the school is a subordinate body of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, which, as a local government, has standing as the employer-respondent, the school itself does not have independent standing as a party.
B. Justifiability of the suspension
The employee fully admitted that he had operated the corporate body, the Youth Soccer Academy, without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment, so grounds for discipline existed. Even if the employee’s concurrent employment was not for the purpose of personal profit, it is clear that he violated the duty to faithfully provide labor and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment. He continued to serve as the representative of the corporate body even after the disciplinary measure, and all mitigating factors had already been reflected in the disciplinary decision, so the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive. As no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures, the procedures were also lawful.
C. Justifiability of the dismissal
The employee fully admitted all facts related to the dismissal, including the operation of the hobby class, so grounds for discipline existed. The fact that he operated a hobby class for the school’s students without the school’s approval and received money from parents requires strict sanctions. In light of prior precedents involving suspension, the level of dismissal cannot be considered excessive. As no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures, the procedures were lawfully conducted.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the school has standing as a party
As the school is a subordinate body of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, which, as a local government, has standing as the employer-respondent, the school itself does not have independent standing as a party.
B. Justifiability of the suspension
The employee fully admitted that he had operated the corporate body, the Youth Soccer Academy, without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment, so grounds for discipline existed. Even if the employee’s concurrent employment was not for the purpose of personal profit, it is clear that he violated the duty to faithfully provide labor and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment. He continued to serve as the representative of the corporate body even after the disciplinary measure, and all mitigating factors had already been reflected in the disciplinary decision, so the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive. As no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures, the procedures were also lawful.
C. Justifiability of the dismissal
The employee fully admitted all facts related to the dismissal, including the operation of the hobby class, so grounds for discipline existed. The fact that he operated a hobby class for the school’s students without the school’s approval and received money from parents requires strict sanctions. In light of prior precedents involving suspension, the level of dismissal cannot be considered excessive. As no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures, the procedures were lawfully conducted.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Standing as a Party (Fewer than 5 Employees · Adjacent Corporation)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Misunderstanding as Mutual Termination (Agreement with Employee Representative)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, concurrent employment · receipt of money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class), 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 Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’”, in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to concurrent employment and receipt of money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class) can be viewed together on the “Concurrent Employment · Receipt of Money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision relating to “concurrent employment and receipt of money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025BuHae3378 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.21
- Summary of outcome:
A. Whether the school has standing as a party: As the school is a subordinate body of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, which, as a local government, has standing as the employer-respondent, the school itself does not have independent standing as a party.
B. Justifiability of suspension from duty: The employee operated a corporate body, the Youth Soccer Academy, without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee of a national/public school operated a corporate body, the Youth Soccer Academy, without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment, and separately operated a soccer hobby class for students without the school’s approval, during which he received money from parents. For these acts he was subjected to disciplinary suspension and dismissal.
The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy, claiming that the disciplinary measures constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application in Case 2025BuHae3378.
In the course of the proceedings, the following issues arose: whether the school had standing as an independent employer-respondent (party) in the Labor Relations Commission procedure; the justifiability of the suspension; and the justifiability of the final dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: “Where an employee of a school belonging to a local government operates a corporate body and a hobby class and receives money without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment, (i) whether the school has standing as an employer/party, and (ii) whether suspension and dismissal on the grounds of such misconduct are justified in terms of the level of discipline and the procedures followed.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel held that the school was merely a subordinate body of the local government, and that standing as the employer-respondent under the employment contract belonged to the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Accordingly, the school itself did not have independent standing as a party.
The panel found the suspension to be justified on the following grounds: the employee himself admitted that he had operated the corporate body, the Youth Soccer Academy, without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment; even if the concurrent employment was not for the purpose of personal profit, it clearly violated the duty to faithfully provide labor and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment; mitigating factors had already been taken into account at the time of discipline so that the level of suspension could not be viewed as excessive; and no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures.
In addition, the panel held the dismissal to be justified and not an unfair dismissal, based on the following: the employee fully admitted the facts relating to the operation of the hobby class and other matters connected to the dismissal; the receipt of money from parents while operating a hobby class for students without the school’s approval requires strict sanctions in light of the nature and public character of educational institutions; in view of prior disciplinary precedents involving suspension, the level of dismissal could not be considered excessive; and no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures leading up to the dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where there are rules prohibiting concurrent employment or a prior approval system, you must obtain prior approval from the employer (local government, office of education, etc.) for any concurrent employment, even if it is for a public-interest purpose or generates only modest income. In particular, in schools and educational institutions, operating separate programs for students and parents and receiving money in connection with such programs may be evaluated as undermining public character and trust, regardless of whether there was “personal profit-seeking.” If carried out without prior approval, such conduct may justify dismissal.
Even where the facts are admitted in the course of disciplinary proceedings, it is necessary to systematically explain and substantiate the circumstances of the concurrent employment, how any income was used, whether there was any actual damage to the school, and prior disciplinary precedents, and to actively argue and prove that the level of discipline is excessive. In similar disputes, it is advisable to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, who are familiar with trends in decisions of the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, and to design a defense strategy from the early stages.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the perspective of employers, schools, and local governments, it is important to clearly set out in the rules of employment and personnel regulations: prohibitions on concurrent employment; procedures for obtaining prior approval for concurrent employment; and prohibitions on receiving money in connection with students or customers. These rules should also be sufficiently explained and taught in practice on a regular basis. In particular, in structures such as national/public schools where the administrative entity and its subordinate bodies are separated, it is necessary to clarify in advance who is the “employer” under the employment contract and who will be the respondent/defendant in Labor Relations Commission and court proceedings, in order to reduce unnecessary disputes over standing as a party.
To ensure the justifiability of the level of discipline, it is advisable to整理 disciplinary precedents for similar cases and to establish disciplinary standards that comprehensively take into account the nature of the misconduct, intent, amount of money involved, degree of impairment of public character, and the employee’s attitude. During the disciplinary process, investigations of relevant facts, opportunities for explanation, operation of the disciplinary committee, and other procedures should be conducted in accordance with the regulations. Where necessary, employers should seek advice from labor law experts to manage risks so that layoffs or severe disciplinary measures are not later overturned as unfair dismissal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the school has standing as a party
As the school is a subordinate body of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, which, as a local government, has standing as the employer-respondent, the school itself does not have independent standing as a party.
B. Justifiability of the suspension
The employee fully admitted that he had operated the corporate body, the Youth Soccer Academy, without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment, so grounds for discipline existed. Even if the employee’s concurrent employment was not for the purpose of personal profit, it is clear that he violated the duty to faithfully provide labor and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment. He continued to serve as the representative of the corporate body even after the disciplinary measure, and all mitigating factors had already been reflected in the disciplinary decision, so the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive. As no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures, the procedures were also lawful.
C. Justifiability of the dismissal
The employee fully admitted all facts related to the dismissal, including the operation of the hobby class, so grounds for discipline existed. The fact that he operated a hobby class for the school’s students without the school’s approval and received money from parents requires strict sanctions. In light of prior precedents involving suspension, the level of dismissal cannot be considered excessive. As no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures, the procedures were lawfully conducted.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the school has standing as a party
As the school is a subordinate body of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, which, as a local government, has standing as the employer-respondent, the school itself does not have independent standing as a party.
B. Justifiability of the suspension
The employee fully admitted that he had operated the corporate body, the Youth Soccer Academy, without obtaining the school’s prior approval for concurrent employment, so grounds for discipline existed. Even if the employee’s concurrent employment was not for the purpose of personal profit, it is clear that he violated the duty to faithfully provide labor and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment. He continued to serve as the representative of the corporate body even after the disciplinary measure, and all mitigating factors had already been reflected in the disciplinary decision, so the level of discipline cannot be regarded as excessive. As no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures, the procedures were also lawful.
C. Justifiability of the dismissal
The employee fully admitted all facts related to the dismissal, including the operation of the hobby class, so grounds for discipline existed. The fact that he operated a hobby class for the school’s students without the school’s approval and received money from parents requires strict sanctions. In light of prior precedents involving suspension, the level of dismissal cannot be considered excessive. As no defects were found in the disciplinary procedures, the procedures were lawfully conducted.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Standing as a Party (Fewer than 5 Employees · Adjacent Corporation)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Misunderstanding as Mutual Termination (Agreement with Employee Representative)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully Upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, concurrent employment · receipt of money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class), 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 Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’”, in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to concurrent employment and receipt of money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class) can be viewed together on the “Concurrent Employment · Receipt of Money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
