[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “excessive disciplinary sanction (overcharging language academy tuition).” Decision date: 2026-09-17 · Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae159 Key issue summary: A. Justifiability of grounds for discipline Among the acts of a particular employee that the employer listed as “agendas,” the following were recognized as grounds for discipline: recording a 25‑minute class as a 50‑minute class and thereby overcharging tuition, conducting classes without reporting after registering a center employee as a member, and circumventing the “Happy Time” operating rules and conducting classes in prohibited time slots. 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case concerned a disciplinary suspension handled by the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission partially accepted the existence of grounds for discipline, but ruled in favor of the employee on the basis that the level of discipline and the procedure were unlawful. As Labor Law Firm Law& frequently handles similar cases, this decision will help you understand how the Labor Relations Commission views control over the severity of disciplinary sanctions and defects in disciplinary procedures. Ⅰ. Case Overview At a business that appears to be a language academy, the employee was disciplined on the grounds that: (i) class times were recorded as longer than they actually were, resulting in overcharged tuition; (ii) classes were conducted without reporting after registering a center employee as a member; and (iii) classes were conducted in time slots not permitted under the “Happy Time” operating rules by circumventing those rules. The employer listed these reasons in the form of “agendas,” referred the matter to the disciplinary committee, and imposed a two‑month suspension without pay. The employee, asserting that there were problems with the grounds, the level, and the procedure of the discipline, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal (discipline). Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case were whether, in a situation where some misconduct was established, a two‑month suspension constituted a disciplinary sanction that was markedly excessive in light of social norms and thus an abuse or excess of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, and whether the disciplinary procedure—including specification of the grounds for discipline and confirmation of the representative—had been lawfully conducted. Ⅲ. Summary of Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case found that the following acts constituted misconduct that could undermine corporate order and therefore amounted to grounds for discipline: recording a 25‑minute class as a 50‑minute class and thereby overcharging tuition, conducting classes without reporting after registering a center employee as a member, and circumventing the “Happy Time” rules and conducting classes in violation of the permitted time slots. At the same time, the panel noted that the employer had failed to comply with step‑by‑step penalty rules, that the employee had no prior disciplinary record and there were no clearly established internal standards for determining the level of discipline, that the employer’s statements about the risk of recurrence were inconsistent and self‑contradictory, and that, compared with identical or similar violations, the sanction lacked proportionality. In light of these factors, the panel held that the dismissal measure in this case—namely, a two‑month suspension—was markedly excessive in light of social norms and exceeded the bounds of the employer’s discretionary disciplinary authority, and was therefore unfair. The panel also found that, even though the employer had afforded the employee an opportunity to explain, the procedure was unlawful because the employer failed to specify the concrete provisions on grounds for discipline under the rules of employment and did not properly follow the procedures under the rules of employment and internal regulations for confirming the disciplinary authority or representative. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, even if some misconduct is acknowledged, it is important to remember that the excessive nature of the disciplinary level can be challenged before the Labor Relations Commission where the sanction is unduly severe or lacks proportionality compared with other cases within the company. In particular, if the disciplinary notice or attendance request does not specify the concrete provisions on grounds for discipline, or if there are indications that the procedures for forming the disciplinary committee or obtaining the representative’s approval were not conducted in accordance with the regulations, it is crucial to actively assert and prove the procedural unlawfulness as well. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, the grounds for discipline should be precisely linked to and specified by reference to provisions set out in the employment contract, rules of employment, and personnel regulations. The procedures—for forming the disciplinary committee, obtaining the representative’s approval, and providing an opportunity to explain—should be conducted strictly in accordance with the regulations and documented in writing. In addition, by establishing in advance a step‑by‑step disciplinary system and standards for determining the level of sanctions, and by maintaining proportionality in the level of discipline across similar cases, employers can reduce the risk that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will find an abuse of discretionary disciplinary authority. This decision clearly shows that the mere existence of grounds for discipline is not sufficient; the balance of the disciplinary level and the lawfulness of the procedure must both be satisfied for the discipline to be upheld. To prevent disputes before the Labor Relations Commission, employers should continuously review and refine their regulations and case response strategies in consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which some of the employee’s grounds for discipline were acknowledged, but the two‑month suspension was found to be markedly excessive in light of social norms and beyond the bounds of discretionary authority, rendering the level of discipline excessive and the disciplinary procedure unlawful. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Justifiability of Grounds for Discipline Among the acts of a particular employee that the employer listed as “agendas,” the following were recognized as grounds for discipline: recording a 25‑minute class as a 50‑minute class and thereby overcharging tuition, conducting classes without reporting after registering a center employee as a member, and circumventing the “Happy Time” operating rules and conducting classes in violation of the permitted time slots. b. Appropriateness of the Level of Discipline Even if some of the grounds are acknowledged, in light of the employer’s violation of step‑by‑step penalty rules, the absence of prior disciplinary history, the lack of standards for determining the level of discipline, statements inconsistent with the employer’s assertion of risk of recurrence, and proportionality compared with identical violations, a two‑month suspension appears markedly excessive in light of social norms and beyond the bounds of discretionary authority. c. Lawfulness of the Disciplinary Procedure Although the employer afforded the employee an opportunity to explain, the procedure was found to be unlawful because the employer failed to specify the concrete grounds for discipline under the rules of employment and appears not to have complied with the procedures for confirming the representative. [See More Related Decisions] - “Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Negligent Supervision)” Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Disciplinary Sanction (Participation in Services for Another Institution)” Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Relief Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)” Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, excessive disciplinary sanction (overcharging language academy tuition), disciplinary dismissal (disciplinary action), violation of company policy · noncompliance 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, “Formation of Employment Offer (No Agreement on Start Date)” Unfair Dismissal Decision, in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to excessive disciplinary sanction (overcharging language academy tuition) can be found in the “Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Overcharging Language Academy Tuition)” decision list. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article