[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “appropriateness of disciplinary sanction (loss of exam answer sheets).” Decision date: 2026-07-28 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해1810 Summary of key issues: A. Existence of grounds for discipline The employee, as the chief examination manager (Head of the Examination Headquarters) responsible for exam administration, bore responsibility for the transport and security of answer sheets, etc. In light of the fact that he failed to fully discharge his duty of care during the transport of the answer sheets, his conduct constituted a violation of Article 33(10) and (22) of the Rules of Employment, and thus grounds for discipline were found to exist. B. Appropriateness of the level of discipline Given that, due to the nature of the employer’s business, the reliability of evaluation tests is critical, and that the loss of answer sheets, which formed the grounds for discipline, could cause significant damage to the company’s credibility... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, an employee working as an examination manager lost exam answer sheets and was subsequently dismissed. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission held that the employer’s disciplinary dismissal was justified and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy. Labor Law Firm Law& uses this decision to整理 the criteria for assessing the level of disciplinary sanction and the disciplinary procedure. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where the Head of the Examination Headquarters, who was responsible for exam administration, lost the answer sheets, the disciplinary dismissal for such negligence was justified in terms of (i) grounds for discipline, (ii) appropriateness of the level of discipline, and (iii) disciplinary procedures. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employee, as the Head of the Examination Headquarters who oversaw exam administration and the transport and security of answer sheets, failed to fulfill his duty of care and thereby lost the answer sheets; that such conduct constituted a breach of the disciplinary provisions in the Rules of Employment (Article 33(10) and (22)); and that, given the nature of the company’s business, the decline in the reliability of evaluation tests, the actual occurrence of financial loss and disruption to business operations, and the potential for serious damage to corporate credibility, grounds for discipline existed and the level of disciplinary sanction could not be regarded as clearly excessive by social norms. In addition, even though the Rules of Employment did not contain separate provisions on disciplinary procedures, the employer notified the employee of the convening of the disciplinary committee and obtained a written explanation from the employee, thereby safeguarding the employee’s right to defense. In light of the Supreme Court’s position that a disciplinary measure is unlawful only where the grounds, procedure, or level of discipline amount to an abuse of discretion under social norms, the dismissal in this case was held to be procedurally sound and justified. The dismissal in this case was therefore held to be justified, as grounds for discipline were established, the level of discipline could not be deemed to have clearly lost its reasonableness under social norms, and there were no significant defects in the disciplinary procedure. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even if the conduct is negligent rather than intentional, when handling core materials such as exam answer sheets that are directly linked to the company’s credibility and external image, a single instance of serious negligence may lead to disciplinary dismissal. In particular, employees in managerial or supervisory positions are assessed not only on their own actions but also on their failure to supervise. It is therefore necessary to check and document the implementation of all stages—transport, storage, and handover—on one’s own initiative. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly set out, in the Rules of Employment and internal regulations, the procedures for the transport and security of key assets such as answer sheets and exam papers, to sufficiently notify and train employees on these procedures in advance, and to link them explicitly to grounds for discipline. In order to secure the legitimacy of the level of discipline, employers should prepare a written statement that comprehensively reviews the consequences of the misconduct (damage to credibility, financial loss, disruption to business), the employee’s position and scope of responsibility, and the presence or absence of negligence. Employers should also meticulously ensure procedural fairness, including notice of the disciplinary committee and the provision of an opportunity for explanation. Decisions such as this serve as important benchmarks in unfair dismissal disputes, demonstrating how not only the existence of grounds for discipline but also the nature of the industry, the degree of impairment to trust, and the scale of damage are comprehensively considered in assessing the legitimacy of the level of discipline and the procedure. They should therefore be referred to when responding to similar cases. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that the dismissal was justified, on the grounds that the employee, as an examination manager, bore responsibility for the loss of answer sheets, that grounds for discipline therefore existed, that the level of disciplinary sanction was appropriate, and that there were no defects in the disciplinary procedure. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Existence of Grounds for Discipline The employee, as the Head of the Examination Headquarters responsible for exam administration, bore responsibility for the transport and security of answer sheets, etc. In light of the fact that he failed to fully discharge his duty of care during the transport of the answer sheets, his conduct constituted a violation of Article 33(10) and (22) of the Rules of Employment, and thus grounds for discipline were recognized. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Given that, due to the nature of the employer’s business, the reliability of evaluation tests is important, the loss of answer sheets, which formed the grounds for discipline, could cause significant damage to the company’s credibility. In addition, in the process of compensating the test takers after the loss of the answer sheets, financial loss and disruption to business operations occurred. Accordingly, the level of disciplinary sanction was deemed appropriate. c. Legality of the Disciplinary Procedure Although the Rules of Employment did not contain separate provisions on disciplinary procedures, the employer notified the employee that a disciplinary committee would be convened and obtained a written explanation from the employee. It could not therefore be said that the employee’s right to defense was infringed, and the procedure was deemed to have no defects. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanction (Participation in Outsourced Work for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Failure in Management and Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, appropriateness of disciplinary sanction (loss of exam answer sheets), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Childcare Teacher at Daycare Center)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to “appropriateness of disciplinary sanction (loss of exam answer sheets)” can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanction (Loss of Exam Answer Sheets).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article