[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “disciplinary severity (unauthorised removal of confidential information).” Decision date: 2026-07-28 · Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae2023 Key issue summary: (a) Whether grounds for discipline existed – four grounds (unauthorised removal of company confidential information; unauthorised working from home and leaving the workplace; unjust receipt of night work allowance; and remarks and conduct causing colleagues discomfort, insult, and a sense of threat) were found to be justified, whereas grounds relating to disruption of company business and mental distress to colleagues by raising false allegations, threatening remarks to external investigators and HR personnel in connection with workplace bullying, false statements about the company, confidential infor… 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case concerns an application for remedy against disciplinary dismissal heard by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the Commission did not accept some of the disciplinary grounds but nevertheless held that the dismissal as a whole was justified. Labor Law Firm Law& aims, through this decision, to organise the legal principles on the assessment of the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal, disciplinary procedures, and the severity of disciplinary measures, so as to help prevent unfair dismissal disputes. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee received a disciplinary dismissal from the company and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The employer asserted the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal based on several instances of misconduct, including unauthorised removal of company confidential information, unauthorised working from home and leaving the workplace, unjust receipt of night work allowance, and remarks and conduct causing colleagues to feel threatened. The Labor Relations Commission examined in detail whether each ground for discipline was established, and at the same time reviewed whether the severity of the disciplinary measure was excessive and whether the disciplinary procedure met the standards required under the Labor Standards Act and the company’s rules of employment. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are whether, in a situation where only some of multiple disciplinary grounds are validly established, a disciplinary dismissal based on, among other things, unauthorised removal of company confidential information constitutes a socially acceptable level of disciplinary severity, and whether the disciplinary procedure was lawfully conducted despite measures such as blocking the employee’s IT account. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that four disciplinary grounds were justified—namely, unauthorised removal of company confidential information, unauthorised working from home and leaving the workplace, unjust receipt of night work allowance, and remarks and conduct causing colleagues discomfort, insult, and a sense of threat—whereas three grounds—raising false allegations, threatening remarks in connection with a workplace bullying investigation, and social media posts about the company and colleagues—were unjustified due to lack of proof or lack of legitimacy. Furthermore, given that the unauthorised removal of confidential information fell under a ground for disciplinary dismissal expressly stipulated in the rules of employment, that its importance had been repeatedly emphasised through information security training, and that the remaining established acts of misconduct could not be regarded as minor, the panel held that these acts had destroyed the relationship of trust between employer and employee. The employee argued that his/her right to defence had been infringed by the blocking of his/her IT account. However, considering the nature and risk of the misconduct, including concerns about information leakage, the blocking of the account was viewed as an appropriate security measure. In addition, the company notified the employee of the disciplinary committee hearing via personal email and provided an opportunity to present explanations. Taking into account Supreme Court precedents to the effect that, absent a specific obligation in the rules of employment to give prior detailed notice of the alleged misconduct, a summarised notice is permissible, the panel found no material defect in the disciplinary procedure. Ultimately, although some of the disciplinary grounds were unjustified, in light of the content and seriousness of the core misconduct—unauthorised removal of confidential information—and the other established acts of misconduct, the severity of the disciplinary dismissal could not be regarded as manifestly excessive by social standards, and procedural fairness was satisfied. Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was justified and did not constitute an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it must be recognised with utmost seriousness that acts such as unauthorised removal of company confidential information, unauthorised working from home or leaving the workplace, and unjust receipt of allowances can directly constitute grounds for disciplinary dismissal under the rules of employment and may in fact be evaluated as destroying the relationship of trust. Even if some of the disciplinary grounds are exaggerated or unjust, where the core misconduct is serious, the dismissal as a whole may still be found justified. It is therefore necessary at an early stage to self-check one’s work practices, including use of email and messaging tools, removal of materials, and methods of claiming allowances. Moreover, even where security measures such as blocking IT accounts are taken, if notice of the disciplinary committee hearing and an opportunity to submit written explanations are provided, it is not easy to argue procedural illegality. It is thus important to keep records of what materials were obtained and how, and what explanations were given, in the course of exercising one’s right to defence. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is easier to have the legitimacy of disciplinary severity recognised if the rules of employment clearly stipulate disciplinary dismissal grounds for major types of misconduct such as leakage of confidential information, unjust receipt of allowances, and unauthorised absence or leaving the workplace, and if the importance of information security, attendance, and allowance payment rules is repeatedly communicated through regular training. In cases where multiple disciplinary grounds are combined, each ground’s provability should be assessed objectively, and it should be examined whether disciplinary dismissal can be justified based on the core grounds alone, even if some grounds are found unjustified, in light of the case law standard of “whether the employment relationship can be maintained according to social norms.” Even where security measures such as blocking IT accounts are taken immediately after the misconduct, employers should faithfully implement procedural safeguards such as notice of the disciplinary committee hearing, providing an opportunity to submit written explanations, and giving summarised but specific notice of the disciplinary grounds, in order to pre-empt procedural-defect arguments at the Labor Relations Commission stage. Establishing a table of disciplinary severity standards and managing consistency with similar cases can also be advantageous in assessments of whether disciplinary discretion has been abused. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which the existence of grounds for discipline, the appropriateness of the severity of the measure, and the absence of procedural defects were recognised, and the dismissal was held to be justified. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (1) Whether grounds for discipline existed Of the seven disciplinary grounds, four—unauthorised removal of company confidential information; unauthorised working from home and leaving the workplace; unjust receipt of night work allowance; and remarks and conduct causing colleagues discomfort, insult, and a sense of threat—were found to be justified. However, three grounds—disruption of company business and causing mental distress to colleagues by raising false allegations; threatening remarks to external investigators and HR personnel in connection with workplace bullying; and posting false statements about the company, confidential information, and hostile content on social media—were found to be unjustified. (2) Whether the severity of the disciplinary measure was appropriate Among the disciplinary grounds, the unauthorised removal of company confidential information is expressly stipulated as a ground for disciplinary dismissal in the rules of employment, and its importance had been emphasised through information security training within the company. In light of these circumstances, it can be considered that this conduct destroyed the relationship of trust between the applicant and the respondent, and the remaining established acts of misconduct cannot be regarded as minor. Accordingly, the severity of the disciplinary dismissal in this case is appropriate. (3) Whether the disciplinary procedure was lawful The employee argued that the employer blocked his/her IT account, making it impossible to collect materials to rebut the disciplinary grounds and thereby fundamentally blocking his/her right to defence. However, in light of the employee’s misconduct, the employer’s blocking of the employee’s IT account appears to have been an appropriate measure, and it was confirmed that the employer subsequently sent a notice of the disciplinary committee hearing to the employee’s personal email and sufficiently guaranteed the employee’s right to explanation and defence. Therefore, the disciplinary procedure was lawful. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Severity (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Organisation)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, disciplinary severity (unauthorised removal of confidential information), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy/non-compliance with work orders, unauthorised absence, 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 Case on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Loss of Exam Answer Sheets)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to disciplinary severity (unauthorised removal of confidential information) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorised Removal of Confidential Information).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article