Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Unauthorized Concurrent Employment (Paid Operation of a School Hobby Class)” (Unfair Dismissal 522)
- Date2026/07/05 04:11
- Read 42
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of “unauthorized concurrent employment (paid operation of a school hobby class).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9589 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-06-04 · Result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues: … Even if the conduct was not for the purpose of profit‑seeking, it is clear that the employee violated the duty to faithfully perform work and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment. The employee has continued to serve as the representative director of an incorporated association even after the disciplinary action, and all mitigating factors were already reflected in the disciplinary measure, so the level of discipline cannot be viewed as excessive. As no defect was found in the disciplinary procedure, the procedure was also lawful.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a school teacher was dismissed for operating a paid hobby class for students without the school’s approval and receiving money from parents. The teacher claimed unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the initial decision, recognized the legitimacy of the dismissal, and dismissed the application for re‑examination of the unfair dismissal remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where a teacher operates a hobby class for students without the school’s approval and receives money, dismissal based on violation of the prohibition on concurrent employment and the duty of faithful service is justified even if the purpose of profit‑seeking is not clear, and whether there are any defects in the level of discipline or in the disciplinary procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that the employee admitted all facts relating to the operation of the hobby class; that operating a hobby class for students without the school’s approval and receiving money from parents is conduct that, as a worker in an educational institution, requires strict sanction; that mitigating circumstances had already been reflected in the disciplinary measure, making it difficult to view the level of discipline as excessive; and that no particular defect was found in the disciplinary procedure.
The Commission therefore held that the dismissal in this case was justified, on the grounds that the disciplinary reasons of violating the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment and the duty to faithfully perform work were established, and that the conduct constituted a serious breach of duty making it difficult, under social norms, to continue the employment relationship.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if concurrent employment is not directly for the purpose of profit‑seeking, if it is carried out continuously and repeatedly without the employer’s prior approval and, in particular, involves the exchange of money with the employer’s customers (here, students and parents), one must be aware that severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal, may be imposed. For employees of educational institutions and public institutions, the relevance to their official duties is evaluated more strictly, so even activities that may seem minor or ancillary must go through the internal approval procedure for concurrent employment.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the obligation to refrain from concurrent employment, the prior approval procedure, and the level of discipline in case of violation. In particular, educational institutions such as schools should establish clear standards and guidance regarding the operation of paid programs for students and parents and the receipt of money. When imposing discipline, employers should carefully determine the level of discipline so that it is not deemed excessive, taking into comprehensive consideration the nature of the misconduct, the character of the monetary transactions, and any past record.
This decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission is a useful example of how violations of the prohibition on concurrent employment and the receipt of money are evaluated in unfair dismissal disputes, and how the legality of the level of discipline and of the disciplinary procedure is reviewed. If similar issues are anticipated, it is advisable to consult in advance with experienced professionals in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… Even if the conduct was not for the purpose of profit‑seeking, it is clear that the employee violated the duty to faithfully perform work and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment. The employee has continued to serve as the representative director of an incorporated association even after the disciplinary action, and all mitigating factors were already reflected in the disciplinary measure, so the level of discipline cannot be viewed as excessive. As no defect was found in the disciplinary procedure, the procedure was also lawful. Legitimacy of the dismissal: since the employee admitted all facts related to the dismissal, including the operation of the hobby class, the grounds for discipline exist; operating a hobby class for the school’s students without the school’s approval and receiving money from parents is conduct that requires strict sanction; considering prior cases of suspension from duty, it is difficult to view the level of discipline as excessive; and as for the disciplinary procedure, …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
… Even if the conduct was not for the purpose of profit‑seeking, it is clear that the employee violated the duty to faithfully perform work and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment. The employee has continued to serve as the representative director of an incorporated association even after the disciplinary action, and all mitigating factors were already reflected in the disciplinary measure, so the level of discipline cannot be viewed as excessive. As no defect was found in the disciplinary procedure, the procedure was also lawful. Legitimacy of the dismissal: since the employee admitted all facts related to the dismissal, including the operation of the hobby class, the grounds for discipline exist; operating a hobby class for the school’s students without the school’s approval and receiving money from parents is conduct that requires strict sanction; considering prior cases of suspension from duty, it is difficult to view the level of discipline as excessive; and as for the disciplinary procedure, … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Result: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Scope of Grounds for Disqualification (Same Law Firm)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, unauthorized concurrent employment (paid operation of a school hobby class), 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Scope of Grounds for Disqualification (Same Law Firm)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to unauthorized concurrent employment (paid operation of a school hobby class) can be found in the “Unauthorized Concurrent Employment (Paid Operation of a School Hobby Class) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial ruling was upheld on the issue of “unauthorized concurrent employment (paid operation of a school hobby class).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9589 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-06-04 · Result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues: … Even if the conduct was not for the purpose of profit‑seeking, it is clear that the employee violated the duty to faithfully perform work and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment. The employee has continued to serve as the representative director of an incorporated association even after the disciplinary action, and all mitigating factors were already reflected in the disciplinary measure, so the level of discipline cannot be viewed as excessive. As no defect was found in the disciplinary procedure, the procedure was also lawful.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a school teacher was dismissed for operating a paid hobby class for students without the school’s approval and receiving money from parents. The teacher claimed unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. The Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the initial decision, recognized the legitimacy of the dismissal, and dismissed the application for re‑examination of the unfair dismissal remedy.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where a teacher operates a hobby class for students without the school’s approval and receives money, dismissal based on violation of the prohibition on concurrent employment and the duty of faithful service is justified even if the purpose of profit‑seeking is not clear, and whether there are any defects in the level of discipline or in the disciplinary procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case noted that the employee admitted all facts relating to the operation of the hobby class; that operating a hobby class for students without the school’s approval and receiving money from parents is conduct that, as a worker in an educational institution, requires strict sanction; that mitigating circumstances had already been reflected in the disciplinary measure, making it difficult to view the level of discipline as excessive; and that no particular defect was found in the disciplinary procedure.
The Commission therefore held that the dismissal in this case was justified, on the grounds that the disciplinary reasons of violating the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment and the duty to faithfully perform work were established, and that the conduct constituted a serious breach of duty making it difficult, under social norms, to continue the employment relationship.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if concurrent employment is not directly for the purpose of profit‑seeking, if it is carried out continuously and repeatedly without the employer’s prior approval and, in particular, involves the exchange of money with the employer’s customers (here, students and parents), one must be aware that severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal, may be imposed. For employees of educational institutions and public institutions, the relevance to their official duties is evaluated more strictly, so even activities that may seem minor or ancillary must go through the internal approval procedure for concurrent employment.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly set out in the rules of employment and personnel regulations the obligation to refrain from concurrent employment, the prior approval procedure, and the level of discipline in case of violation. In particular, educational institutions such as schools should establish clear standards and guidance regarding the operation of paid programs for students and parents and the receipt of money. When imposing discipline, employers should carefully determine the level of discipline so that it is not deemed excessive, taking into comprehensive consideration the nature of the misconduct, the character of the monetary transactions, and any past record.
This decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission is a useful example of how violations of the prohibition on concurrent employment and the receipt of money are evaluated in unfair dismissal disputes, and how the legality of the level of discipline and of the disciplinary procedure is reviewed. If similar issues are anticipated, it is advisable to consult in advance with experienced professionals in unfair dismissal and redundancy cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… Even if the conduct was not for the purpose of profit‑seeking, it is clear that the employee violated the duty to faithfully perform work and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment. The employee has continued to serve as the representative director of an incorporated association even after the disciplinary action, and all mitigating factors were already reflected in the disciplinary measure, so the level of discipline cannot be viewed as excessive. As no defect was found in the disciplinary procedure, the procedure was also lawful. Legitimacy of the dismissal: since the employee admitted all facts related to the dismissal, including the operation of the hobby class, the grounds for discipline exist; operating a hobby class for the school’s students without the school’s approval and receiving money from parents is conduct that requires strict sanction; considering prior cases of suspension from duty, it is difficult to view the level of discipline as excessive; and as for the disciplinary procedure, …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
… Even if the conduct was not for the purpose of profit‑seeking, it is clear that the employee violated the duty to faithfully perform work and the obligation to obtain prior approval for concurrent employment. The employee has continued to serve as the representative director of an incorporated association even after the disciplinary action, and all mitigating factors were already reflected in the disciplinary measure, so the level of discipline cannot be viewed as excessive. As no defect was found in the disciplinary procedure, the procedure was also lawful. Legitimacy of the dismissal: since the employee admitted all facts related to the dismissal, including the operation of the hobby class, the grounds for discipline exist; operating a hobby class for the school’s students without the school’s approval and receiving money from parents is conduct that requires strict sanction; considering prior cases of suspension from duty, it is difficult to view the level of discipline as excessive; and as for the disciplinary procedure, … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Result: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Scope of Grounds for Disqualification (Same Law Firm)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, unauthorized concurrent employment (paid operation of a school hobby class), 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Scope of Grounds for Disqualification (Same Law Firm)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to unauthorized concurrent employment (paid operation of a school hobby class) can be found in the “Unauthorized Concurrent Employment (Paid Operation of a School Hobby Class) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
