1. Case Overview

Employee B served as the manager of a regional office and was responsible for shipping agency operations.
During a review of expenses incurred at various ports, the branch manager requested that B explain the settlement method and specific use of waste disposal expenses.

However, B refused to provide an explanation. As a result, A Co., Ltd. dismissed B on the grounds of embezzlement of company funds.
B subsequently filed an application for relief with the Regional Labor Relations Commission, alleging wrongful dismissal.
Although the Labor Relations Commission determined that disciplinary grounds existed, it concluded that dismissal was excessive and granted the application for relief.

After the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the same conclusion on review, A Co., Ltd. filed an administrative lawsuit against the Chairperson of the Central Labor Relations Commission.
 

2. Key Issues

The principal issues in this case were:

• Whether sufficient grounds for disciplinary action existed;

• Whether the dismissal constituted an abuse or excess of discretionary authority in determining the appropriate level of discipline.

3. Legal Strategy

Attorneys Seok‑yun Jung and Jung‑min Ha of One Law Partners, LLC emphasized that B's conduct constituted a serious disciplinary violation under the company's work rules because B had received portions of waste disposal fees in cash, used the funds at personal discretion, and handled them improperly.

The attorneys further argued that waste disposal procedures require customs declarations and import procedures under the Customs Act and, in the case of wood waste, mandatory reporting and plant quarantine procedures under the Plant Protection Act.

They demonstrated that B had processed such matters arbitrarily in violation of applicable legal requirements.

In addition, the attorneys highlighted that:

• B maintained no records or accounting documents capable of verifying how the waste disposal expenses had been used and disbursed;

• B unlawfully handled company operations, artificially reduced costs, and appropriated the resulting differences over an extended period;

• B's non‑cooperative attitude obstructed the company's internal investigation and suggested intentional efforts to conceal misconduct.

Based on these facts, the attorneys argued that the dismissal could not be regarded as an abuse or excess of the employer's disciplinary discretion.
 

4. Significance of the Decision

The court accepted the arguments presented by One Law Partners, LLC and revoked the Labor Relations Commission's decision granting relief for wrongful dismissal.

The court rejected all arguments advanced by B and the defendant, holding that B's conduct exposed A Co., Ltd. to significant administrative and criminal liability, contractual risks, and reputational harm, and therefore did not constitute wrongful dismissal.

This decision is significant because it clearly recognizes the legal and business risks arising from employee misconduct and affirms an employer's authority to impose dismissal where serious violations expose the company to substantial legal and operational consequences.
 

Attorney Seok‑yun Jung | syjeong@onelawpartners.com
Attorney Jung‑min Ha | jmha@onelawpartners.com
 

Public Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com