Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Loss from Credit Sales of Products)” (Unfair Dismissal 39)
- Date2026/01/03 21:48
- Read 212
[Case Information]
- Case Title: Unfair Dismissal Case on “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Loss from Credit Sales of Products)” (Unfair Dismissal 1)
- Date of Decision:
- Case Number: Fully upheld
- Decision-Making Body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae594 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.26
- Summary of Outcome:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “improper handling of the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products and responsibility for handling the resulting loss incident,” which the employer relied upon as grounds for discipline, was recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
I. Case Overview
In this case, an employee at an affiliate workplace of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Nonghyup) was dismissed for cause on the ground that the employee had improperly handled the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products, thereby causing a loss. The employee sought a remedy for unfair dismissal, and the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission fully upheld the application.
While the Commission acknowledged the existence of the grounds for discipline, it viewed as the core issue whether the level of discipline (dismissal) had, in light of social norms, clearly lost its legitimacy due to excessive severity.
II. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the disciplinary ground of “improper handling of the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products and responsibility for the resulting loss” is recognized, a disciplinary dismissal imposed by mechanically aggravating the sanction based solely on the formal criteria in Nonghyup’s Rules on the Handling of Disciplinary and Indemnity Matters constitutes an excessively severe disciplinary measure that, in light of social norms, has clearly lost its legitimacy.
III. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that the employee’s “improper handling of the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products and responsibility for handling the resulting loss incident,” relied upon by the employer as grounds for discipline, does in itself constitute a valid ground for discipline.
However, in determining the level of discipline, the employer aggravated the sanction by applying the internal disciplinary standards in a schematic manner, without comprehensively considering all relevant circumstances, such as the content, nature, and degree of the misconduct; the objective of maintaining work discipline to be achieved through discipline; the standards for determining the level of discipline; and the possibility of the employee’s continued performance of duties.
Furthermore, dismissal for cause is only justified where there is a serious reason such that, in light of social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. The dismissal in this case was imposed without undergoing such a substantive review.
Accordingly, the Commission found that the dismissal in this case was an excessively severe disciplinary measure that, in light of social norms, had clearly lost its legitimacy and thus fell outside the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
IV. Practical Points (Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to remember that even if some grounds for discipline are acknowledged, the employee may still separately contest whether dismissal is disproportionately severe in light of those grounds.
In particular, it is crucial to assert and prove, in a comprehensive manner, factors such as the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the scale of the damage and whether it has been remedied, past work performance and attitude, and the possibility of continued employment, so as to persuasively demonstrate to the Labor Relations Commission that “dismissal is excessive.”
V. Practical Points (Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even where there are internal standards on disciplinary severity, such as Rules on the Handling of Disciplinary and Indemnity Matters, there is a significant risk that a dismissal imposed by mechanically applying those standards will be found to constitute an abuse of discretion.
At the disciplinary committee stage, the employer should specifically examine the content and degree of the misconduct, the nature of the duties, the impact on corporate order, whether the damage has been remedied, and past performance evaluations, and should clearly record in the minutes and resolutions the reasons why dismissal is strictly necessary and unavoidable.
Cases such as this demonstrate that, in unfair dismissal disputes, not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the level of discipline is subject to rigorous review. Both employees and employers should therefore always keep in mind the perspective of “balanced discipline in light of social norms.”
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “improper handling of the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products and responsibility for handling the resulting loss incident,” which the employer relied upon as grounds for discipline, was recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
When determining the level of discipline, the employer was required to assess the “appropriateness of continued performance of duties” by considering various circumstances, including the content, nature, and degree of the misconduct that gave rise to the discipline; the objective to be achieved through discipline; and the standards for determining the level of discipline.
Nevertheless, the employer schematically aggravated the level of discipline in accordance with Nonghyup’s disciplinary standards under its Rules on the Handling of Disciplinary and Indemnity Matters and imposed “disciplinary dismissal” on the employee. The Commission found that this was, in light of social norms, a disposition that had clearly lost its legitimacy and thus constituted an unfair measure that exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “improper handling of the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products and responsibility for handling the resulting loss incident,” which the employer relied upon as grounds for discipline, was recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
When determining the level of discipline, the employer was required to assess the “appropriateness of continued performance of duties” by considering various circumstances, including the content, nature, and degree of the misconduct that gave rise to the discipline; the objective to be achieved through discipline; and the standards for determining the level of discipline.
Nevertheless, the employer schematically aggravated the level of discipline in accordance with Nonghyup’s disciplinary standards under its Rules on the Handling of Disciplinary and Indemnity Matters and imposed “disciplinary dismissal” on the employee. The Commission found that this was, in light of social norms, a disposition that had clearly lost its legitimacy and thus constituted an unfair measure that exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- Unfair Dismissal Case on “Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances)” (Unfair Dismissal 1)
- Unfair Dismissal Case on “Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice to Spouse)” (Unfair Dismissal 1) – Date of Decision: – Decision-Making Body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae766 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
- Unfair Dismissal Case on “Termination by Agreement (112 Report · Statement Inducing Voluntary Resignation)” (Unfair Dismissal 1)
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1)”, in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (loss from credit sales of products) at List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Loss from Credit Sales of Products).
[When You Need to Consult a Specialist]
If you require further strategic review in relation to unfair dismissal, redundancy, or disciplinary and dismissal procedures, you will need professional advice based on the specific facts and evidence of your case.
Labor Law Firm Law& draws on extensive experience in handling numerous unfair dismissal and Labor Relations Commission cases to assist you from issue identification and evidence strategy through to designing settlement and litigation procedures.
If you would like a detailed consultation, please feel free to contact us via the “Consultation and Quote Request” menu at the top of our website.
- Case Title: Unfair Dismissal Case on “Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Loss from Credit Sales of Products)” (Unfair Dismissal 1)
- Date of Decision:
- Case Number: Fully upheld
- Decision-Making Body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae594 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.26
- Summary of Outcome:
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “improper handling of the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products and responsibility for handling the resulting loss incident,” which the employer relied upon as grounds for discipline, was recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
1. Legal Implications
I. Case Overview
In this case, an employee at an affiliate workplace of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Nonghyup) was dismissed for cause on the ground that the employee had improperly handled the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products, thereby causing a loss. The employee sought a remedy for unfair dismissal, and the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission fully upheld the application.
While the Commission acknowledged the existence of the grounds for discipline, it viewed as the core issue whether the level of discipline (dismissal) had, in light of social norms, clearly lost its legitimacy due to excessive severity.
II. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the disciplinary ground of “improper handling of the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products and responsibility for the resulting loss” is recognized, a disciplinary dismissal imposed by mechanically aggravating the sanction based solely on the formal criteria in Nonghyup’s Rules on the Handling of Disciplinary and Indemnity Matters constitutes an excessively severe disciplinary measure that, in light of social norms, has clearly lost its legitimacy.
III. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that the employee’s “improper handling of the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products and responsibility for handling the resulting loss incident,” relied upon by the employer as grounds for discipline, does in itself constitute a valid ground for discipline.
However, in determining the level of discipline, the employer aggravated the sanction by applying the internal disciplinary standards in a schematic manner, without comprehensively considering all relevant circumstances, such as the content, nature, and degree of the misconduct; the objective of maintaining work discipline to be achieved through discipline; the standards for determining the level of discipline; and the possibility of the employee’s continued performance of duties.
Furthermore, dismissal for cause is only justified where there is a serious reason such that, in light of social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained. The dismissal in this case was imposed without undergoing such a substantive review.
Accordingly, the Commission found that the dismissal in this case was an excessively severe disciplinary measure that, in light of social norms, had clearly lost its legitimacy and thus fell outside the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority in imposing discipline.
IV. Practical Points (Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important to remember that even if some grounds for discipline are acknowledged, the employee may still separately contest whether dismissal is disproportionately severe in light of those grounds.
In particular, it is crucial to assert and prove, in a comprehensive manner, factors such as the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the scale of the damage and whether it has been remedied, past work performance and attitude, and the possibility of continued employment, so as to persuasively demonstrate to the Labor Relations Commission that “dismissal is excessive.”
V. Practical Points (Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s side, even where there are internal standards on disciplinary severity, such as Rules on the Handling of Disciplinary and Indemnity Matters, there is a significant risk that a dismissal imposed by mechanically applying those standards will be found to constitute an abuse of discretion.
At the disciplinary committee stage, the employer should specifically examine the content and degree of the misconduct, the nature of the duties, the impact on corporate order, whether the damage has been remedied, and past performance evaluations, and should clearly record in the minutes and resolutions the reasons why dismissal is strictly necessary and unavoidable.
Cases such as this demonstrate that, in unfair dismissal disputes, not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the appropriateness of the level of discipline is subject to rigorous review. Both employees and employers should therefore always keep in mind the perspective of “balanced discipline in light of social norms.”
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “improper handling of the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products and responsibility for handling the resulting loss incident,” which the employer relied upon as grounds for discipline, was recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
When determining the level of discipline, the employer was required to assess the “appropriateness of continued performance of duties” by considering various circumstances, including the content, nature, and degree of the misconduct that gave rise to the discipline; the objective to be achieved through discipline; and the standards for determining the level of discipline.
Nevertheless, the employer schematically aggravated the level of discipline in accordance with Nonghyup’s disciplinary standards under its Rules on the Handling of Disciplinary and Indemnity Matters and imposed “disciplinary dismissal” on the employee. The Commission found that this was, in light of social norms, a disposition that had clearly lost its legitimacy and thus constituted an unfair measure that exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
a. Existence of grounds for discipline
The employee’s “improper handling of the work of concluding credit sales agreements for products and responsibility for handling the resulting loss incident,” which the employer relied upon as grounds for discipline, was recognized as a valid ground for discipline.
b. Appropriateness of the level of discipline
When determining the level of discipline, the employer was required to assess the “appropriateness of continued performance of duties” by considering various circumstances, including the content, nature, and degree of the misconduct that gave rise to the discipline; the objective to be achieved through discipline; and the standards for determining the level of discipline.
Nevertheless, the employer schematically aggravated the level of discipline in accordance with Nonghyup’s disciplinary standards under its Rules on the Handling of Disciplinary and Indemnity Matters and imposed “disciplinary dismissal” on the employee. The Commission found that this was, in light of social norms, a disposition that had clearly lost its legitimacy and thus constituted an unfair measure that exceeded the scope of the employer’s discretionary authority. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- Unfair Dismissal Case on “Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances)” (Unfair Dismissal 1)
- Unfair Dismissal Case on “Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Oral Notice to Spouse)” (Unfair Dismissal 1) – Date of Decision: – Decision-Making Body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae766 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
- Unfair Dismissal Case on “Termination by Agreement (112 Report · Statement Inducing Voluntary Resignation)” (Unfair Dismissal 1)
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances)’ (Unfair Dismissal 1)”, in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary severity (loss from credit sales of products) at List of Decisions on Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Loss from Credit Sales of Products).
[When You Need to Consult a Specialist]
If you require further strategic review in relation to unfair dismissal, redundancy, or disciplinary and dismissal procedures, you will need professional advice based on the specific facts and evidence of your case.
Labor Law Firm Law& draws on extensive experience in handling numerous unfair dismissal and Labor Relations Commission cases to assist you from issue identification and evidence strategy through to designing settlement and litigation procedures.
If you would like a detailed consultation, please feel free to contact us via the “Consultation and Quote Request” menu at the top of our website.
