Corporate trends / Performance record
“Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Refusal of Audit · Obstruction of Business)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 591)
- Date2026/08/03 04:11
- Read 10
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full (all claims upheld) on the issue of “defects in disciplinary procedures (refusal of audit · obstruction of business).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae910 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case outcome: All claims upheld
Summary of key issues: ... Taking into account that the employee’s misconduct occurred over several months and appears to have been intentional rather than negligent, that it caused substantial disruption to the employer’s business including refusal by the external accounting firm to conduct the audit, that the obstruction of business among the acts of misconduct was serious enough to constitute a criminal offense, and that the employee showed neither remorse nor willingness to prevent recurrence, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee’s misconduct came to light during the company’s external accounting audit, leading to disciplinary dismissal. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision focusing both on the seriousness of the employee’s misconduct itself and on the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, in particular whether there were any defects in the contents of the written notice of dismissal.
In handling this matter, Labor Law Firm Law& conducted a comprehensive analysis of the case by reviewing court precedents and Labor Relations Commission practice concerning the proportionality of disciplinary sanctions and defects in disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Even where serious grounds such as intentional misconduct over several months and obstruction of an accounting audit are established, can the dismissal still be found unfair if there is a procedural defect in that the written notice of dismissal does not specifically state the grounds for dismissal and the timing of dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee’s misconduct was repeated over several months, appeared to be intentional rather than negligent, caused substantial disruption to the employer’s business including refusal by the external accounting firm to conduct the audit, and that part of the misconduct constituted obstruction of business serious enough to be subject to criminal punishment, and that the employee showed neither remorse nor any intention to prevent recurrence.
Accordingly, it determined that the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and thus did not constitute an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority.
However, it also found that the “Explanation of Reasons for Disciplinary Action” dated 19 December 2025, although constituting a notice of dismissal under the company’s rules of employment, did not specifically state the grounds for dismissal or the timing of dismissal. Therefore, the document failed to satisfy the requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act for written notice of “grounds and timing of dismissal,” and a defect in the disciplinary procedure existed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where the misconduct is serious and has been repeated over a long period, it should be borne in mind that the Labor Relations Commission tends to broadly recognize the existence of grounds for discipline and the necessity of dismissal itself. However, if the written notice of dismissal does not clearly specify the concrete grounds for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, there may be room to challenge the dismissal as unfair on the basis of procedural defects. Accordingly, employees should carefully check the contents of the dismissal notice and the timing of its delivery.
In addition, acts that may constitute criminal offenses—such as obstruction of business or obstruction of an audit—are weighed very heavily in assessing the legitimacy of dismissal. Even when raising internal issues or expressing dissenting opinions, employees should take care not to interfere with the company’s basic business operations or with audits conducted by external institutions.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, even where the employee’s misconduct is serious and the necessity of dismissal is sufficiently established, failure to specify the “concrete grounds for dismissal and the timing of dismissal” in the dismissal notice may result in a finding of unfair dismissal due to procedural defects. In particular, where the rules of employment provide specific forms for “Explanation of Reasons for Disciplinary Action” or “Notice of Dismissal,” those documents will constitute the written notice of dismissal required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Employers should therefore review and, if necessary, revise both the forms and actual drafting practices to ensure that neither the grounds nor the timing of dismissal are omitted.
Furthermore, where there is serious misconduct such as obstruction of an accounting audit or obstruction of business at a level subject to criminal punishment, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate and record the relevant facts, the impact on the company’s operations, and whether the employee has shown remorse. These matters should be reflected in the minutes of the disciplinary committee and in the written statement of grounds for dismissal, so that the company can substantiate the proportionality and appropriateness of the disciplinary measure at any subsequent stage before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
... Taking into account that the employee’s misconduct occurred over several months and appears to have been intentional rather than negligent, that it caused substantial disruption to the employer’s business including refusal by the external accounting firm to conduct the audit, that the obstruction of business among the acts of misconduct was serious enough to constitute a criminal offense, and that the employee showed neither remorse nor willingness to prevent recurrence, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority.
Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure: The “Explanation of Reasons for Disciplinary Action” dated 19 December 2025 was prepared pursuant to Article 64 of the rules of employment and, in light of its contents such as “decision to dismiss,” constitutes a notice of dismissal. However, because it did not state the grounds and timing of dismissal, there was a procedural defect.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
... Taking into account that the employee’s misconduct occurred over several months and appears to have been intentional rather than negligent, that it caused substantial disruption to the employer’s business including refusal by the external accounting firm to conduct the audit, that the obstruction of business among the acts of misconduct was serious enough to constitute a criminal offense, and that the employee showed neither remorse nor willingness to prevent recurrence, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority.
Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure: The “Explanation of Reasons for Disciplinary Action” dated 19 December 2025 was prepared pursuant to Article 64 of the rules of employment and, in light of its contents such as “decision to dismiss,” constitutes a notice of dismissal. However, because it did not state the grounds and timing of dismissal, there was a procedural defect. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defects in disciplinary procedures (refusal of audit · obstruction of business), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to defects in disciplinary procedures (refusal of audit · obstruction of business) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Refusal of Audit · Obstruction of Business).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full (all claims upheld) on the issue of “defects in disciplinary procedures (refusal of audit · obstruction of business).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae910 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-20 · Case outcome: All claims upheld
Summary of key issues: ... Taking into account that the employee’s misconduct occurred over several months and appears to have been intentional rather than negligent, that it caused substantial disruption to the employer’s business including refusal by the external accounting firm to conduct the audit, that the obstruction of business among the acts of misconduct was serious enough to constitute a criminal offense, and that the employee showed neither remorse nor willingness to prevent recurrence, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, the employee’s misconduct came to light during the company’s external accounting audit, leading to disciplinary dismissal. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered its decision focusing both on the seriousness of the employee’s misconduct itself and on the lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure, in particular whether there were any defects in the contents of the written notice of dismissal.
In handling this matter, Labor Law Firm Law& conducted a comprehensive analysis of the case by reviewing court precedents and Labor Relations Commission practice concerning the proportionality of disciplinary sanctions and defects in disciplinary procedures.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Even where serious grounds such as intentional misconduct over several months and obstruction of an accounting audit are established, can the dismissal still be found unfair if there is a procedural defect in that the written notice of dismissal does not specifically state the grounds for dismissal and the timing of dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee’s misconduct was repeated over several months, appeared to be intentional rather than negligent, caused substantial disruption to the employer’s business including refusal by the external accounting firm to conduct the audit, and that part of the misconduct constituted obstruction of business serious enough to be subject to criminal punishment, and that the employee showed neither remorse nor any intention to prevent recurrence.
Accordingly, it determined that the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as manifestly unreasonable in light of social norms, and thus did not constitute an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority.
However, it also found that the “Explanation of Reasons for Disciplinary Action” dated 19 December 2025, although constituting a notice of dismissal under the company’s rules of employment, did not specifically state the grounds for dismissal or the timing of dismissal. Therefore, the document failed to satisfy the requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act for written notice of “grounds and timing of dismissal,” and a defect in the disciplinary procedure existed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where the misconduct is serious and has been repeated over a long period, it should be borne in mind that the Labor Relations Commission tends to broadly recognize the existence of grounds for discipline and the necessity of dismissal itself. However, if the written notice of dismissal does not clearly specify the concrete grounds for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, there may be room to challenge the dismissal as unfair on the basis of procedural defects. Accordingly, employees should carefully check the contents of the dismissal notice and the timing of its delivery.
In addition, acts that may constitute criminal offenses—such as obstruction of business or obstruction of an audit—are weighed very heavily in assessing the legitimacy of dismissal. Even when raising internal issues or expressing dissenting opinions, employees should take care not to interfere with the company’s basic business operations or with audits conducted by external institutions.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, even where the employee’s misconduct is serious and the necessity of dismissal is sufficiently established, failure to specify the “concrete grounds for dismissal and the timing of dismissal” in the dismissal notice may result in a finding of unfair dismissal due to procedural defects. In particular, where the rules of employment provide specific forms for “Explanation of Reasons for Disciplinary Action” or “Notice of Dismissal,” those documents will constitute the written notice of dismissal required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Employers should therefore review and, if necessary, revise both the forms and actual drafting practices to ensure that neither the grounds nor the timing of dismissal are omitted.
Furthermore, where there is serious misconduct such as obstruction of an accounting audit or obstruction of business at a level subject to criminal punishment, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate and record the relevant facts, the impact on the company’s operations, and whether the employee has shown remorse. These matters should be reflected in the minutes of the disciplinary committee and in the written statement of grounds for dismissal, so that the company can substantiate the proportionality and appropriateness of the disciplinary measure at any subsequent stage before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
... Taking into account that the employee’s misconduct occurred over several months and appears to have been intentional rather than negligent, that it caused substantial disruption to the employer’s business including refusal by the external accounting firm to conduct the audit, that the obstruction of business among the acts of misconduct was serious enough to constitute a criminal offense, and that the employee showed neither remorse nor willingness to prevent recurrence, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority.
Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure: The “Explanation of Reasons for Disciplinary Action” dated 19 December 2025 was prepared pursuant to Article 64 of the rules of employment and, in light of its contents such as “decision to dismiss,” constitutes a notice of dismissal. However, because it did not state the grounds and timing of dismissal, there was a procedural defect.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
... Taking into account that the employee’s misconduct occurred over several months and appears to have been intentional rather than negligent, that it caused substantial disruption to the employer’s business including refusal by the external accounting firm to conduct the audit, that the obstruction of business among the acts of misconduct was serious enough to constitute a criminal offense, and that the employee showed neither remorse nor willingness to prevent recurrence, the Commission held that the disciplinary measure of dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse of the employer’s disciplinary authority.
Lawfulness of the disciplinary procedure: The “Explanation of Reasons for Disciplinary Action” dated 19 December 2025 was prepared pursuant to Article 64 of the rules of employment and, in light of its contents such as “decision to dismiss,” constitutes a notice of dismissal. However, because it did not state the grounds and timing of dismissal, there was a procedural defect. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, defects in disciplinary procedures (refusal of audit · obstruction of business), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · failure to comply 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Extinction of Interest in Remedy (Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to defects in disciplinary procedures (refusal of audit · obstruction of business) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Refusal of Audit · Obstruction of Business).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
