Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Determination of Disciplinary Sanctions (Repeated Misconduct)” (Unfair Dismissal 617)
- Date2026/08/12 04:07
- Read 3
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “determination of disciplinary sanctions (repeated misconduct).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “determination of disciplinary sanctions (repeated misconduct).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae592 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-10 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: … In light of the fact that the employee repeatedly engaged in misconduct, and expressed a sense of grievance rather than remorse, it is difficult to recognize any intention to reform. Accordingly, the trust relationship between the employee and employer can be deemed fundamentally destroyed, which constitutes a serious cause attributable to the employee to the extent that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be continued. Therefore, it is difficult to view the employer’s dismissal of the employee as having departed from or abused its discretion or as having exceeded the appropriate range of disciplinary sanctions.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed for disciplinary reasons based on repeated misconduct and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground that the dismissal was unfair. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employer’s dismissal—implemented after following the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment, including notification of the grounds for discipline, provision of an opportunity to explain, and convening a personnel committee—was justified.
During the proceedings, the employee argued that the grounds for discipline had been notified only in abstract terms and that the level of dismissal was excessively severe and thus constituted unfair dismissal. In contrast, the employer asserted the legitimacy of the dismissal on the basis of the repeated nature of the misconduct, the employee’s lack of remorse, and the resulting destruction of the trust relationship.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee’s misconduct was repeated and there was a lack of intention to reform, the employer’s choice of dismissal as a disciplinary measure constitutes an unfair dismissal that is manifestly excessive under social norms, and whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful despite the somewhat abstract notification of the grounds for discipline.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that the employee repeatedly engaged in misconduct, that it was difficult to recognize any intention to reform because the employee mainly expressed a sense of grievance rather than remorse, and that, as a result, the trust relationship between the employee and employer had been fundamentally destroyed, thereby constituting a serious cause attributable to the employee to the extent that, under social norms, the employment relationship could no longer be maintained.
Accordingly, the panel held that it was difficult to view the dismissal in this case as having departed from or abused the disciplinary authority’s discretion or as having exceeded the appropriate range of disciplinary sanctions.
In addition, the panel found the disciplinary procedures to be lawful on the grounds that the employer had complied with the procedures by notifying the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary process, requesting an explanation, convening a personnel committee, and notifying the result, and that, although the grounds for discipline stated in the notice were somewhat abstract, the employee was already fully aware of the relevant misconduct, so there was no substantial impediment to the exercise of the employee’s right to defense.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that, where there is not a single act of misconduct but repeated similar misconduct, and the employee’s attitude is assessed as lacking in remorse, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may readily recognize a “fundamental destruction of the trust relationship.” It should also be noted that, even if the notification of the grounds for discipline during the disciplinary process is somewhat abstract, it will be difficult to allege procedural defects if the employee already sufficiently knows the details of the misconduct and has actually been given an opportunity to explain.
Accordingly, when misconduct is pointed out, it is important to clearly demonstrate an intention to reform by submitting a written explanation of the circumstances, promising to prevent recurrence, and making efforts to remedy any harm, and to strictly manage one’s work attitude and workplace discipline thereafter so that similar misconduct does not recur.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, for the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal to be recognized, first, the grounds and types of disciplinary measures must be clearly set out in the rules of employment, collective agreements, etc.; and second, the procedures such as notification of the grounds for discipline, provision of an opportunity to explain, convening of a disciplinary (personnel) committee, and notification of the result must be faithfully observed. When notifying the grounds for discipline, they should be described as concretely as possible; however, where the misconduct spans a long period or involves multiple acts, it should be borne in mind that, as in relevant precedents, a condensed or comprehensive description may be permitted to the extent that it does not, under social norms, hinder the employee’s exercise of the right to defense.
With respect to the determination of the level of disciplinary sanction, the employer should comprehensively consider the content, frequency, and motive of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, the employee’s past work attitude, and whether any harm has been remedied, and should decide whether to dismiss based on the criterion of whether the dismissal is “not manifestly excessive under social norms.” To this end, it is helpful for preventing disputes to organize past disciplinary levels in similar cases and to record in detail the reasons for determining the level of sanction in the minutes of the disciplinary committee.
As illustrated by this decision of the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, systematically organizing the repeated nature of the misconduct, the absence of any intention to reform, and the degree of destruction of the trust relationship can be advantageous in proving, in an unfair dismissal dispute, that the employer’s disciplinary discretion was exercised legitimately.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Progress of Procedures
… In light of the fact that the employee repeatedly engaged in misconduct, and expressed a sense of grievance rather than remorse, it is difficult to recognize any intention to reform. Accordingly, the trust relationship between the employee and employer can be deemed fundamentally destroyed, which constitutes a serious cause attributable to the employee to the extent that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be continued. Therefore, it is difficult to view the employer’s dismissal of the employee as having departed from or abused its discretion or as having exceeded the appropriate range of disciplinary sanctions.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer complied with the disciplinary procedures, including notification of the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary process, request for explanation, convening of a personnel committee, and notification. Although the grounds for discipline were stated somewhat abstractly in the notice, the employee had previously …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… In light of the fact that the employee repeatedly engaged in misconduct, and expressed a sense of grievance rather than remorse, it is difficult to recognize any intention to reform. Accordingly, the trust relationship between the employee and employer can be deemed fundamentally destroyed, which constitutes a serious cause attributable to the employee to the extent that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be continued. Therefore, it is difficult to view the employer’s dismissal of the employee as having departed from or abused its discretion or as having exceeded the appropriate range of disciplinary sanctions.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer complied with the disciplinary procedures, including notification of the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary process, request for explanation, convening of a personnel committee, and notification. Although the grounds for discipline were stated somewhat abstractly in the notice, the employee had previously … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, determination of disciplinary sanctions (repeated misconduct), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Concerning ‘Formation of Employment Contract (Text Message Notice Before Reporting to Work)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to determination of disciplinary sanctions (repeated misconduct) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Determination of Disciplinary Sanctions (Repeated Misconduct).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “determination of disciplinary sanctions (repeated misconduct).”
Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae592 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-10 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: … In light of the fact that the employee repeatedly engaged in misconduct, and expressed a sense of grievance rather than remorse, it is difficult to recognize any intention to reform. Accordingly, the trust relationship between the employee and employer can be deemed fundamentally destroyed, which constitutes a serious cause attributable to the employee to the extent that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be continued. Therefore, it is difficult to view the employer’s dismissal of the employee as having departed from or abused its discretion or as having exceeded the appropriate range of disciplinary sanctions.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee was dismissed for disciplinary reasons based on repeated misconduct and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground that the dismissal was unfair. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employer’s dismissal—implemented after following the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules of employment, including notification of the grounds for discipline, provision of an opportunity to explain, and convening a personnel committee—was justified.
During the proceedings, the employee argued that the grounds for discipline had been notified only in abstract terms and that the level of dismissal was excessively severe and thus constituted unfair dismissal. In contrast, the employer asserted the legitimacy of the dismissal on the basis of the repeated nature of the misconduct, the employee’s lack of remorse, and the resulting destruction of the trust relationship.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employee’s misconduct was repeated and there was a lack of intention to reform, the employer’s choice of dismissal as a disciplinary measure constitutes an unfair dismissal that is manifestly excessive under social norms, and whether the disciplinary procedures were lawful despite the somewhat abstract notification of the grounds for discipline.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that the employee repeatedly engaged in misconduct, that it was difficult to recognize any intention to reform because the employee mainly expressed a sense of grievance rather than remorse, and that, as a result, the trust relationship between the employee and employer had been fundamentally destroyed, thereby constituting a serious cause attributable to the employee to the extent that, under social norms, the employment relationship could no longer be maintained.
Accordingly, the panel held that it was difficult to view the dismissal in this case as having departed from or abused the disciplinary authority’s discretion or as having exceeded the appropriate range of disciplinary sanctions.
In addition, the panel found the disciplinary procedures to be lawful on the grounds that the employer had complied with the procedures by notifying the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary process, requesting an explanation, convening a personnel committee, and notifying the result, and that, although the grounds for discipline stated in the notice were somewhat abstract, the employee was already fully aware of the relevant misconduct, so there was no substantial impediment to the exercise of the employee’s right to defense.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be borne in mind that, where there is not a single act of misconduct but repeated similar misconduct, and the employee’s attitude is assessed as lacking in remorse, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may readily recognize a “fundamental destruction of the trust relationship.” It should also be noted that, even if the notification of the grounds for discipline during the disciplinary process is somewhat abstract, it will be difficult to allege procedural defects if the employee already sufficiently knows the details of the misconduct and has actually been given an opportunity to explain.
Accordingly, when misconduct is pointed out, it is important to clearly demonstrate an intention to reform by submitting a written explanation of the circumstances, promising to prevent recurrence, and making efforts to remedy any harm, and to strictly manage one’s work attitude and workplace discipline thereafter so that similar misconduct does not recur.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, for the legitimacy of a disciplinary dismissal to be recognized, first, the grounds and types of disciplinary measures must be clearly set out in the rules of employment, collective agreements, etc.; and second, the procedures such as notification of the grounds for discipline, provision of an opportunity to explain, convening of a disciplinary (personnel) committee, and notification of the result must be faithfully observed. When notifying the grounds for discipline, they should be described as concretely as possible; however, where the misconduct spans a long period or involves multiple acts, it should be borne in mind that, as in relevant precedents, a condensed or comprehensive description may be permitted to the extent that it does not, under social norms, hinder the employee’s exercise of the right to defense.
With respect to the determination of the level of disciplinary sanction, the employer should comprehensively consider the content, frequency, and motive of the misconduct, its impact on corporate order, the employee’s past work attitude, and whether any harm has been remedied, and should decide whether to dismiss based on the criterion of whether the dismissal is “not manifestly excessive under social norms.” To this end, it is helpful for preventing disputes to organize past disciplinary levels in similar cases and to record in detail the reasons for determining the level of sanction in the minutes of the disciplinary committee.
As illustrated by this decision of the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, systematically organizing the repeated nature of the misconduct, the absence of any intention to reform, and the degree of destruction of the trust relationship can be advantageous in proving, in an unfair dismissal dispute, that the employer’s disciplinary discretion was exercised legitimately.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.)
2. Matters Determined
a. Case Overview and Progress of Procedures
… In light of the fact that the employee repeatedly engaged in misconduct, and expressed a sense of grievance rather than remorse, it is difficult to recognize any intention to reform. Accordingly, the trust relationship between the employee and employer can be deemed fundamentally destroyed, which constitutes a serious cause attributable to the employee to the extent that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be continued. Therefore, it is difficult to view the employer’s dismissal of the employee as having departed from or abused its discretion or as having exceeded the appropriate range of disciplinary sanctions.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer complied with the disciplinary procedures, including notification of the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary process, request for explanation, convening of a personnel committee, and notification. Although the grounds for discipline were stated somewhat abstractly in the notice, the employee had previously …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… In light of the fact that the employee repeatedly engaged in misconduct, and expressed a sense of grievance rather than remorse, it is difficult to recognize any intention to reform. Accordingly, the trust relationship between the employee and employer can be deemed fundamentally destroyed, which constitutes a serious cause attributable to the employee to the extent that, under social norms, the employment relationship cannot be continued. Therefore, it is difficult to view the employer’s dismissal of the employee as having departed from or abused its discretion or as having exceeded the appropriate range of disciplinary sanctions.
c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedures
The employer complied with the disciplinary procedures, including notification of the grounds for discipline and the disciplinary process, request for explanation, convening of a personnel committee, and notification. Although the grounds for discipline were stated somewhat abstractly in the notice, the employee had previously … /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, determination of disciplinary sanctions (repeated misconduct), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Concerning ‘Formation of Employment Contract (Text Message Notice Before Reporting to Work)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to determination of disciplinary sanctions (repeated misconduct) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Determination of Disciplinary Sanctions (Repeated Misconduct).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
