Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Re-Disciplining and Excessive Severity of Disciplinary Action (Corporate Card and Allowance Fraudulent Receipt)” (Unfair Dismissal 75)
- Date2026/01/11 04:04
- Read 194
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision concerning “re-disciplining and excessive severity of disciplinary action (corporate card and allowance fraudulent receipt)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Fully upheld
- Decision-making body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae700 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.21
- Summary of outcome:
A. Whether the principle of ne bis in idem was violated
As the first dismissal was finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, the employee is deemed retroactively not to have been subject to any disciplinary disposition. Therefore, even if a new disciplinary disposition is imposed again on the same grounds, it cannot be viewed as violating the principle of ne bis in idem, and the grounds for the first and second dismissals are not identical …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer company dismissed an employee for multiple acts of misconduct, and after the first dismissal was finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, imposed a second disciplinary dismissal. The case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in relation to the second dismissal, (i) whether the specific grounds for discipline existed—such as excessive calculation of special leave pay, fraudulent receipt of overtime and holiday work allowances, improper increase of clothing expenses, and unauthorized use of a corporate card (meeting expenses and entertainment expenses)—and (ii) whether the level of discipline was appropriate, as well as (iii) whether there was any violation of the principle of ne bis in idem.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are:
“Whether a second disciplinary dismissal related to the same matter, imposed after the first dismissal has been finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, violates the principle of ne bis in idem, and whether a disciplinary dismissal based on misconduct such as fraudulent use of a corporate card and fraudulent receipt of allowances—where only part of the amount is objectively proven—is excessively severe by social standards.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that, since the first dismissal was finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, the employee must be regarded as having retroactively not been subject to any disciplinary disposition; that where there are defects in the disciplinary procedure or an error in the severity of the sanction, the employer may voluntarily cancel the discipline and newly impose a lawful disciplinary measure; and that the grounds for discipline in the first and second dismissals are not identical and some were newly constituted.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the second disciplinary dismissal could not be regarded as violating the principle of ne bis in idem.
The panel further found that the following were objectively confirmed by documentary evidence and thus constituted misconduct: excessive calculation and payment of special leave pay without a board resolution; fraudulent receipt of overtime and holiday work allowances despite not being eligible for such payment; improper increase of clothing expenses without a board resolution; unauthorized use of a corporate card (meeting expenses); and, among the entertainment expenses, the portion amounting to KRW 731,000.
On the other hand, the additional entertainment expense amounts newly added at the stage of the disciplinary disposition lacked objective basis and therefore could not be recognized as grounds for discipline.
Taking into account that some of the grounds for discipline were not established, and that even the remaining misconduct, when considering its nature, amount, and degree of blameworthiness, was not so serious as to make it impossible to continue the employment relationship, the panel held that:
Even if only part of the grounds for discipline is recognized, the disciplinary dismissal—the most severe form of discipline—is excessively harsh and clearly unreasonable by social standards, and therefore constitutes an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the first dismissal has been found to be unfair, you should be aware that the employer may supplement procedural defects and re-impose discipline based on the same or similar misconduct.
However, absent objective materials for each alleged act of misconduct—such as actual payment and usage records, whether there was a board resolution, and the purpose and amount of corporate card use—it is difficult for such acts to be recognized as valid grounds for discipline.
Furthermore, even if some misconduct is recognized, if, in light of the nature and amount involved, the characteristics of the duties, and the employee’s past work attitude, the level of discipline is excessively severe, the Labor Relations Commission may determine the dismissal to be unfair.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where the first disciplinary measure suffers from procedural defects or excessive severity, the employer may voluntarily cancel the discipline and, if necessary, re-impose discipline through lawful procedures.
However, to avoid disputes over ne bis in idem or double punishment, it is important to carefully examine the identity of the grounds for discipline, the limitation period for discipline, and whether procedural defects have been remedied.
In addition, with respect to corporate card use, payment of various allowances, and execution of welfare expenses, it is advisable to establish clear rules and approval procedures in advance. At the time of discipline, the employer should secure objective evidence for each act of misconduct and carefully consider, in light of the nature, character, and amount of the misconduct, whether the disciplinary purpose could be achieved through a less severe measure such as a pay cut or suspension rather than dismissal.
To prevent this type of unfair dismissal dispute, it is desirable to organize internal rules in advance on the legitimacy of grounds for discipline, standards for the severity of disciplinary measures, and the permissible scope of re-disciplining, by obtaining advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem Was Violated
As the first dismissal was finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, the employee is deemed retroactively not to have been subject to any disciplinary disposition. Therefore, even if a new disciplinary disposition is imposed again on the same grounds, it cannot be viewed as violating the principle of ne bis in idem, and since the grounds for discipline in the first and second dismissals are not identical, the employee’s assertion is without merit.
B. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the five acts of misconduct relied upon by the employer as grounds for discipline—(i) excessive calculation and payment of special leave pay without a board resolution; (ii) fraudulent receipt of overtime and holiday work allowances despite not being eligible for such payment; (iii) improper increase of clothing expenses without a board resolution; (iv) unauthorized use of a corporate card (meeting expenses); and (v) unauthorized use of a corporate card (improper use for entertainment expenses)—the grounds for discipline are recognized with respect to the portion amounting to KRW 731,000 under item (v).
However, with respect to the additional amounts for unauthorized use of a corporate card (improper use for entertainment expenses) that were newly added only at the stage of the disciplinary disposition, there is no objective basis on which to rely as grounds for discipline, and thus they are difficult to regard as constituting grounds for discipline.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Some of the grounds for discipline are not established, and even on the basis of the recognized grounds for discipline, the disciplinary dismissal is excessively severe in light of the degree of blameworthiness for the misconduct.
D. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
There are no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem Was Violated
As the first dismissal was finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, the employee is deemed retroactively not to have been subject to any disciplinary disposition. Therefore, even if a new disciplinary disposition is imposed again on the same grounds, it cannot be viewed as violating the principle of ne bis in idem, and since the grounds for discipline in the first and second dismissals are not identical, the employee’s assertion is without merit.
B. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the five acts of misconduct relied upon by the employer as grounds for discipline—(i) excessive calculation and payment of special leave pay without a board resolution; (ii) fraudulent receipt of overtime and holiday work allowances despite not being eligible for such payment; (iii) improper increase of clothing expenses without a board resolution; (iv) unauthorized use of a corporate card (meeting expenses); and (v) unauthorized use of a corporate card (improper use for entertainment expenses)—the grounds for discipline are recognized with respect to the portion amounting to KRW 731,000 under item (v).
However, with respect to the additional amounts for unauthorized use of a corporate card (improper use for entertainment expenses) that were newly added only at the stage of the disciplinary disposition, there is no objective basis on which to rely as grounds for discipline, and thus they are difficult to regard as constituting grounds for discipline.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Some of the grounds for discipline are not established, and even on the basis of the recognized grounds for discipline, the disciplinary dismissal is excessively severe in light of the degree of blameworthiness for the misconduct.
D. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
There are no defects in the disciplinary procedure. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Concurrent Employment and Receipt of Money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Misunderstanding of Termination by Agreement (Agreement with Employee Representative)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, re-disciplining and excessive severity of disciplinary action (corporate card and allowance fraudulent receipt), 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Concurrent Employment and Receipt of Money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to re-disciplining and excessive severity of disciplinary action (corporate card and allowance fraudulent receipt) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Re-Disciplining and Excessive Severity of Disciplinary Action (Corporate Card and Allowance Fraudulent Receipt).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision concerning “re-disciplining and excessive severity of disciplinary action (corporate card and allowance fraudulent receipt)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Fully upheld
- Decision-making body: Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae700 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.21
- Summary of outcome:
A. Whether the principle of ne bis in idem was violated
As the first dismissal was finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, the employee is deemed retroactively not to have been subject to any disciplinary disposition. Therefore, even if a new disciplinary disposition is imposed again on the same grounds, it cannot be viewed as violating the principle of ne bis in idem, and the grounds for the first and second dismissals are not identical …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer company dismissed an employee for multiple acts of misconduct, and after the first dismissal was finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, imposed a second disciplinary dismissal. The case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in relation to the second dismissal, (i) whether the specific grounds for discipline existed—such as excessive calculation of special leave pay, fraudulent receipt of overtime and holiday work allowances, improper increase of clothing expenses, and unauthorized use of a corporate card (meeting expenses and entertainment expenses)—and (ii) whether the level of discipline was appropriate, as well as (iii) whether there was any violation of the principle of ne bis in idem.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are:
“Whether a second disciplinary dismissal related to the same matter, imposed after the first dismissal has been finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, violates the principle of ne bis in idem, and whether a disciplinary dismissal based on misconduct such as fraudulent use of a corporate card and fraudulent receipt of allowances—where only part of the amount is objectively proven—is excessively severe by social standards.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that, since the first dismissal was finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, the employee must be regarded as having retroactively not been subject to any disciplinary disposition; that where there are defects in the disciplinary procedure or an error in the severity of the sanction, the employer may voluntarily cancel the discipline and newly impose a lawful disciplinary measure; and that the grounds for discipline in the first and second dismissals are not identical and some were newly constituted.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that the second disciplinary dismissal could not be regarded as violating the principle of ne bis in idem.
The panel further found that the following were objectively confirmed by documentary evidence and thus constituted misconduct: excessive calculation and payment of special leave pay without a board resolution; fraudulent receipt of overtime and holiday work allowances despite not being eligible for such payment; improper increase of clothing expenses without a board resolution; unauthorized use of a corporate card (meeting expenses); and, among the entertainment expenses, the portion amounting to KRW 731,000.
On the other hand, the additional entertainment expense amounts newly added at the stage of the disciplinary disposition lacked objective basis and therefore could not be recognized as grounds for discipline.
Taking into account that some of the grounds for discipline were not established, and that even the remaining misconduct, when considering its nature, amount, and degree of blameworthiness, was not so serious as to make it impossible to continue the employment relationship, the panel held that:
Even if only part of the grounds for discipline is recognized, the disciplinary dismissal—the most severe form of discipline—is excessively harsh and clearly unreasonable by social standards, and therefore constitutes an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if the first dismissal has been found to be unfair, you should be aware that the employer may supplement procedural defects and re-impose discipline based on the same or similar misconduct.
However, absent objective materials for each alleged act of misconduct—such as actual payment and usage records, whether there was a board resolution, and the purpose and amount of corporate card use—it is difficult for such acts to be recognized as valid grounds for discipline.
Furthermore, even if some misconduct is recognized, if, in light of the nature and amount involved, the characteristics of the duties, and the employee’s past work attitude, the level of discipline is excessively severe, the Labor Relations Commission may determine the dismissal to be unfair.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where the first disciplinary measure suffers from procedural defects or excessive severity, the employer may voluntarily cancel the discipline and, if necessary, re-impose discipline through lawful procedures.
However, to avoid disputes over ne bis in idem or double punishment, it is important to carefully examine the identity of the grounds for discipline, the limitation period for discipline, and whether procedural defects have been remedied.
In addition, with respect to corporate card use, payment of various allowances, and execution of welfare expenses, it is advisable to establish clear rules and approval procedures in advance. At the time of discipline, the employer should secure objective evidence for each act of misconduct and carefully consider, in light of the nature, character, and amount of the misconduct, whether the disciplinary purpose could be achieved through a less severe measure such as a pay cut or suspension rather than dismissal.
To prevent this type of unfair dismissal dispute, it is desirable to organize internal rules in advance on the legitimacy of grounds for discipline, standards for the severity of disciplinary measures, and the permissible scope of re-disciplining, by obtaining advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem Was Violated
As the first dismissal was finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, the employee is deemed retroactively not to have been subject to any disciplinary disposition. Therefore, even if a new disciplinary disposition is imposed again on the same grounds, it cannot be viewed as violating the principle of ne bis in idem, and since the grounds for discipline in the first and second dismissals are not identical, the employee’s assertion is without merit.
B. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the five acts of misconduct relied upon by the employer as grounds for discipline—(i) excessive calculation and payment of special leave pay without a board resolution; (ii) fraudulent receipt of overtime and holiday work allowances despite not being eligible for such payment; (iii) improper increase of clothing expenses without a board resolution; (iv) unauthorized use of a corporate card (meeting expenses); and (v) unauthorized use of a corporate card (improper use for entertainment expenses)—the grounds for discipline are recognized with respect to the portion amounting to KRW 731,000 under item (v).
However, with respect to the additional amounts for unauthorized use of a corporate card (improper use for entertainment expenses) that were newly added only at the stage of the disciplinary disposition, there is no objective basis on which to rely as grounds for discipline, and thus they are difficult to regard as constituting grounds for discipline.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Some of the grounds for discipline are not established, and even on the basis of the recognized grounds for discipline, the disciplinary dismissal is excessively severe in light of the degree of blameworthiness for the misconduct.
D. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
There are no defects in the disciplinary procedure.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem Was Violated
As the first dismissal was finally determined to be an unfair dismissal, the employee is deemed retroactively not to have been subject to any disciplinary disposition. Therefore, even if a new disciplinary disposition is imposed again on the same grounds, it cannot be viewed as violating the principle of ne bis in idem, and since the grounds for discipline in the first and second dismissals are not identical, the employee’s assertion is without merit.
B. Existence of Grounds for Discipline
Among the five acts of misconduct relied upon by the employer as grounds for discipline—(i) excessive calculation and payment of special leave pay without a board resolution; (ii) fraudulent receipt of overtime and holiday work allowances despite not being eligible for such payment; (iii) improper increase of clothing expenses without a board resolution; (iv) unauthorized use of a corporate card (meeting expenses); and (v) unauthorized use of a corporate card (improper use for entertainment expenses)—the grounds for discipline are recognized with respect to the portion amounting to KRW 731,000 under item (v).
However, with respect to the additional amounts for unauthorized use of a corporate card (improper use for entertainment expenses) that were newly added only at the stage of the disciplinary disposition, there is no objective basis on which to rely as grounds for discipline, and thus they are difficult to regard as constituting grounds for discipline.
C. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline
Some of the grounds for discipline are not established, and even on the basis of the recognized grounds for discipline, the disciplinary dismissal is excessively severe in light of the degree of blameworthiness for the misconduct.
D. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure
There are no defects in the disciplinary procedure. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Concurrent Employment and Receipt of Money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Misunderstanding of Termination by Agreement (Agreement with Employee Representative)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, re-disciplining and excessive severity of disciplinary action (corporate card and allowance fraudulent receipt), 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 in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Concurrent Employment and Receipt of Money (Youth Soccer Academy · Hobby Class)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to re-disciplining and excessive severity of disciplinary action (corporate card and allowance fraudulent receipt) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Re-Disciplining and Excessive Severity of Disciplinary Action (Corporate Card and Allowance Fraudulent Receipt).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
