Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Disciplinary Measure (Receipt of 200,000 Won in Cash)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 527)
- Date2026/07/07 04:05
- Read 33
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary measure (receipt of 200,000 won in cash).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae153 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-02 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee’s receipt of money constitutes a violation of service regulations and is recognized as grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns whether an employee of an agricultural cooperative (Nonghyup) who received 200,000 won in cash from a business counterparty committed an act constituting grounds for disciplinary dismissal, and whether the level of discipline imposed was appropriate. The employee had previously been the subject of a labor commission decision regarding the same act of receiving money. After a more severe disciplinary measure was later imposed by the Personnel Committee, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether the employee’s act of receiving “200,000 won in cash” constitutes grounds for discipline as a violation of the service regulations, and whether the subsequent disciplinary dismissal, decided in light of internal opinion within the organization and concerns over a breakdown in discipline following the prior decision, is an excessively harsh sanction that violates the principles of proportionality and equity.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee did in fact receive money in connection with his/her duties, that this is clearly a prohibited act under the service regulations and therefore constitutes grounds for discipline, that the receipt of money is generally regarded as a serious misconduct in social terms because it gravely undermines corporate trust and organizational discipline, and that, in light of Supreme Court precedents holding that the level of discipline falls within the employer’s discretion and should be deemed unlawful only where it is manifestly unreasonable by social standards, it is difficult to view the dismissal in this case as an abuse or excess of such discretionary authority.
The panel particularly noted that the Personnel Committee’s reassessment on 21 January 2026 of the degree of the employee’s misconduct and negligence cannot necessarily be seen as bound by the Committee’s earlier assessment on 17 July 2025; that, following the prior decision, rumors and sarcastic comments such as “Didn’t receiving 200,000 won in cash end up being acquitted?”, “So now 200,000 won is okay, isn’t it?” spread inside and outside the cooperative, creating a serious risk that the organizational order and external credibility of the agricultural cooperative would be shaken; and that, in light of these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the disciplinary measure taken is clearly contrary to the principles of proportionality or equity.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was based on valid grounds for discipline and that the level of discipline cannot be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards, and therefore does not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it must be borne in mind that even “small amounts of money” can lead to severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal, if there is a connection with job duties and the conduct violates service regulations. In particular, in financial institutions and organizations with a high degree of public character, the mere act of receiving money is directly linked to organizational trust. Accordingly, regardless of whether criminal punishment is imposed, there is a very high likelihood that such conduct will be recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline at the labor commission stage.
Furthermore, even if an employee has obtained a somewhat favorable outcome in a prior remedy application, if internal opinion within the organization, additional circumstances of misconduct, or the extent of damage to the relationship of trust are reassessed, a more severe disciplinary measure may be imposed. It should be remembered that it is not easy to overturn such a measure merely on the ground that it differs from the previous assessment.
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 service regulations the grounds for discipline and the standards for determining the level of discipline with respect to misconduct such as receipt of money or entertainment, and to apply those standards consistently in actual cases. Particularly where, as in this case, a mistaken perception such as “small amounts of money are acceptable” spreads following a prior decision, the employer should systematically organize the facts, internal organizational climate, and standards applied in similar cases so as to fully substantiate the necessity and severity of discipline for the public purpose of restoring organizational discipline and external trust.
In addition, in order to avoid having the disciplinary measure deemed an abuse of disciplinary discretion on the ground that it violates the principles of proportionality and equity, the employer should determine the level of discipline by comprehensively considering the nature of the employee’s duties, whether the misconduct was intentional or repeated, the employee’s prior disciplinary record, and the level of discipline imposed in similar cases.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee’s act of receiving money constitutes a violation of the service regulations and is recognized as grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: The Personnel Committee’s assessment on 21 January 2026 of the degree of the employee’s misconduct and negligence cannot necessarily be regarded as bound by the Personnel Committee’s assessment on 17 July 2025; following the prior decision, numerous rumors and sarcastic remarks such as “Receiving 200,000 won in cash was found not guilty,” “It was cleared,” “Now 200,000 won in cash is fine, so does that mean you just shouldn’t receive anything from 210,000 won and up?” were circulating inside and outside the cooperative, and as a result the organizational order of the agricultural cooperative…
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee’s act of receiving money constitutes a violation of the service regulations and is recognized as grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: The Personnel Committee’s assessment on 21 January 2026 of the degree of the employee’s misconduct and negligence cannot necessarily be regarded as bound by the Personnel Committee’s assessment on 17 July 2025; following the prior decision, numerous rumors and sarcastic remarks such as “Receiving 200,000 won in cash was found not guilty,” “It was cleared,” “Now 200,000 won in cash is fine, so does that mean you just shouldn’t receive anything from 210,000 won and up?” were circulating inside and outside the cooperative, and as a result the organizational order of the agricultural cooperative… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary measure (receipt of 200,000 won in cash), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to follow 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Disciplinary Measure (Dangerous Driving Complaint)”’, in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to “Disciplinary Measure (Receipt of 200,000 Won in Cash)” can be found in the “List of Decisions Relating to Disciplinary Measure (Receipt of 200,000 Won in Cash).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary measure (receipt of 200,000 won in cash).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae153 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-06-02 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee’s receipt of money constitutes a violation of service regulations and is recognized as grounds for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns whether an employee of an agricultural cooperative (Nonghyup) who received 200,000 won in cash from a business counterparty committed an act constituting grounds for disciplinary dismissal, and whether the level of discipline imposed was appropriate. The employee had previously been the subject of a labor commission decision regarding the same act of receiving money. After a more severe disciplinary measure was later imposed by the Personnel Committee, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are whether the employee’s act of receiving “200,000 won in cash” constitutes grounds for discipline as a violation of the service regulations, and whether the subsequent disciplinary dismissal, decided in light of internal opinion within the organization and concerns over a breakdown in discipline following the prior decision, is an excessively harsh sanction that violates the principles of proportionality and equity.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee did in fact receive money in connection with his/her duties, that this is clearly a prohibited act under the service regulations and therefore constitutes grounds for discipline, that the receipt of money is generally regarded as a serious misconduct in social terms because it gravely undermines corporate trust and organizational discipline, and that, in light of Supreme Court precedents holding that the level of discipline falls within the employer’s discretion and should be deemed unlawful only where it is manifestly unreasonable by social standards, it is difficult to view the dismissal in this case as an abuse or excess of such discretionary authority.
The panel particularly noted that the Personnel Committee’s reassessment on 21 January 2026 of the degree of the employee’s misconduct and negligence cannot necessarily be seen as bound by the Committee’s earlier assessment on 17 July 2025; that, following the prior decision, rumors and sarcastic comments such as “Didn’t receiving 200,000 won in cash end up being acquitted?”, “So now 200,000 won is okay, isn’t it?” spread inside and outside the cooperative, creating a serious risk that the organizational order and external credibility of the agricultural cooperative would be shaken; and that, in light of these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the disciplinary measure taken is clearly contrary to the principles of proportionality or equity.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was based on valid grounds for discipline and that the level of discipline cannot be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards, and therefore does not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it must be borne in mind that even “small amounts of money” can lead to severe disciplinary measures, including dismissal, if there is a connection with job duties and the conduct violates service regulations. In particular, in financial institutions and organizations with a high degree of public character, the mere act of receiving money is directly linked to organizational trust. Accordingly, regardless of whether criminal punishment is imposed, there is a very high likelihood that such conduct will be recognized as legitimate grounds for discipline at the labor commission stage.
Furthermore, even if an employee has obtained a somewhat favorable outcome in a prior remedy application, if internal opinion within the organization, additional circumstances of misconduct, or the extent of damage to the relationship of trust are reassessed, a more severe disciplinary measure may be imposed. It should be remembered that it is not easy to overturn such a measure merely on the ground that it differs from the previous assessment.
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 service regulations the grounds for discipline and the standards for determining the level of discipline with respect to misconduct such as receipt of money or entertainment, and to apply those standards consistently in actual cases. Particularly where, as in this case, a mistaken perception such as “small amounts of money are acceptable” spreads following a prior decision, the employer should systematically organize the facts, internal organizational climate, and standards applied in similar cases so as to fully substantiate the necessity and severity of discipline for the public purpose of restoring organizational discipline and external trust.
In addition, in order to avoid having the disciplinary measure deemed an abuse of disciplinary discretion on the ground that it violates the principles of proportionality and equity, the employer should determine the level of discipline by comprehensively considering the nature of the employee’s duties, whether the misconduct was intentional or repeated, the employee’s prior disciplinary record, and the level of discipline imposed in similar cases.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee’s act of receiving money constitutes a violation of the service regulations and is recognized as grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: The Personnel Committee’s assessment on 21 January 2026 of the degree of the employee’s misconduct and negligence cannot necessarily be regarded as bound by the Personnel Committee’s assessment on 17 July 2025; following the prior decision, numerous rumors and sarcastic remarks such as “Receiving 200,000 won in cash was found not guilty,” “It was cleared,” “Now 200,000 won in cash is fine, so does that mean you just shouldn’t receive anything from 210,000 won and up?” were circulating inside and outside the cooperative, and as a result the organizational order of the agricultural cooperative…
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline: The employee’s act of receiving money constitutes a violation of the service regulations and is recognized as grounds for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline: The Personnel Committee’s assessment on 21 January 2026 of the degree of the employee’s misconduct and negligence cannot necessarily be regarded as bound by the Personnel Committee’s assessment on 17 July 2025; following the prior decision, numerous rumors and sarcastic remarks such as “Receiving 200,000 won in cash was found not guilty,” “It was cleared,” “Now 200,000 won in cash is fine, so does that mean you just shouldn’t receive anything from 210,000 won and up?” were circulating inside and outside the cooperative, and as a result the organizational order of the agricultural cooperative… /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, disciplinary measure (receipt of 200,000 won in cash), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to follow 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Disciplinary Measure (Dangerous Driving Complaint)”’, in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to “Disciplinary Measure (Receipt of 200,000 Won in Cash)” can be found in the “List of Decisions Relating to Disciplinary Measure (Receipt of 200,000 Won in Cash).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
