Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Some disciplinary grounds established: sufficiency and burden of proof
Supreme Court, Nov. 28, 2019, 2017Du57318 (judgment)
Case name: 부당해고구제재심판정취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where only some of several disciplinary grounds are established, may the remaining grounds alone be enough to uphold the disciplinary measure, and who bears the burden of proving that?
Holding
Where only some grounds are established, the disciplinary measure may still be kept without being unlawful if the established grounds alone suffice. Whether they suffice may differ with the specific circumstances of the enterprise, so the court must weigh the circumstances the Court listed and decide carefully, so that keeping the measure is not an unforeseen disadvantage to the worker. In a suit contesting a remedy decision on unfair dismissal under Article 31 of the Labor Standards Act, the employer who asserts the dismissal was proper bears the burden of proving that the established grounds alone suffice.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
여러 개의 징계사유 중 일부가 인정되지 않더라도 인정되는 다른 일부 징계사유만으로 해당 징계처분의 타당성을 인정하기에 충분한 경우에는 그 징계처분을 유지하여도 위법하지 아니하다.
Unofficial English translation
Even if some of multiple grounds for disciplinary action are not established, where the other grounds that are established alone are sufficient to sustain the appropriateness of the relevant disciplinary disposition, it is not unlawful to maintain such disciplinary disposition.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
전체 징계사유 중 인정된 징계사유의 내용과 비중, 징계사유 중 일부가 인정되지 않은 이유, 해당 징계처분의 종류, 해당 기업이 정하고 있는 징계처분 결정 절차, 해당 기업의 규모·사업 성격 및 징계에 관한 기준과 관행 등에 비추어 인정된 징계사유만으로 동일한 징계처분을 할 가능성이 있는지를 고려하여 해당 징계처분을 유지하는 것이 근로자에게 예측하지 못한 불이익이 되지 않도록 신중하게 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether to maintain the relevant disciplinary disposition must be carefully determined, so that it does not become an unforeseen disadvantage to the employee, in light of the content and weight of the established grounds for disciplinary action among all the grounds for disciplinary action, the reasons why some of the grounds for disciplinary action were not established, the type of the relevant disciplinary disposition, the procedure for determining disciplinary disposition established by the relevant company, the size of the relevant company and the nature of its business, and the standards and practices concerning discipline, and by taking into consideration whether there is a possibility that the same disciplinary disposition would be made on the basis of the established grounds for disciplinary action alone.
Factors
- 전체 징계사유 중 인정된 징계사유의 내용과 비중
- 징계사유 중 일부가 인정되지 않은 이유
- 해당 기업이 정하고 있는 징계처분 결정 절차
- 해당 기업의 규모·사업 성격 및 징계에 관한 기준과 관행
- 인정된 징계사유만으로 동일한 징계처분을 할 가능성이 있는지를 고려하여
Unofficial English translation
• The content and weight of the established grounds for disciplinary action among all the grounds for disciplinary action
• The reasons why some of the grounds for disciplinary action were not established
• The procedure for determining disciplinary disposition established by the relevant company
• The size of the relevant company and the nature of its business, and the standards and practices concerning discipline
• in consideration of whether there is a possibility that the same disciplinary disposition would be made on the basis of the established grounds for disciplinary action alone,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2014. 11. 27. 선고 2011다41420 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2011Da41420 decided November 27, 2014
Decisions referred to
대법원 1999. 4. 27. 선고 99두202 판결(공1999상, 1074), 대법원 2014. 11. 27. 선고 2011다41420 판결
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
근로기준법 제31조에 의하여 부당해고구제재심판정을 다투는 소송에서 해고의 정당성에 관한 증명책임은 이를 주장하는 사용자가 부담하므로
Unofficial English translation
because, in a lawsuit contesting a re-adjudication decision for remedy from unfair dismissal under Article 31 of the Labor Standards Act, the burden of proof as to the justifiable cause of dismissal is borne by the employer who asserts it
Open question and revisit condition
What must the employer show for the established grounds alone to make the same dismissal possible, and how is that shown when the personnel committee resolved on the assumption that all grounds were established?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court on the record, once it weighs the enterprise's size, business nature and disciplinary standards and practice, will show how the sufficiency test is applied. Any amendment to Article 31 of the Labor Standards Act or Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act, or a later decision departing from Supreme Court Decision 2011Da41420 or Supreme Court Decision 99Du202, calls for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 20 July 2017 (2017Nu45096), found established only ground 1-1, 1-3 and 1-4 against Participant 1, ground 2-1 against Participant 3 and ground 3-1 against Participant 2. It held that each participant's established grounds were reasons for which the employment relationship could not be continued in the general course of society and were enough to uphold the dismissals, and so kept the first-instance judgment that had granted the company's claim to set aside the Central Labour Relations Commission's remedy decision.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found that the grounds appeared to have arisen from a dispute over management control between the largest shareholder and his son, and to be acts the participants unavoidably took as employees while following the son's instructions. The grounds found not established could not be called light, and could not be said to carry a small weight among the total grounds the company cited for each participant; the company did not properly show why it had included some grounds, its personnel committee had resolved on the assumption that all grounds were established, and no material confirmed the company's size, business nature or disciplinary standards and practice. Since dismissal strips the worker's position itself and is the harshest measure available, upholding it on the established grounds alone risked an unforeseen disadvantage, so the court below had misread the law on the validity of discipline where grounds are partly established and had failed to deliberate as required, and the judgment was reversed and remanded by the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which every disciplinary ground the employer relied on was established, so no question arises about sufficiency of the rest.
- A case in which the file shows that the same measure could have been decided on the established grounds alone, under the enterprise's size, business nature and disciplinary standards and practice.
- A disciplinary measure short of dismissal, where the Court's reasoning rested on dismissal being the harshest measure that strips the worker's position itself.
Record verification notes
List each ground the employer relied on, mark which were established and which were not, and gather what the employer offered as the basis for each rejected ground. Then collect the enterprise's size, business nature, the wording of its disciplinary standards and practice, and the personnel committee's resolution, since the employer must prove that the same measure would still follow. Compare the type of measure with the reasons for rejection before relying on this decision elsewhere.
From the official text
Points at issue
여러 개의 징계사유 중 일부 징계사유만으로 근로자에 대한 해당 징계처분의 타당성을 인정하기에 충분한지 판단하는 기준 및 그에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=사용자)
Unofficial English translation
The criteria for determining whether some of multiple grounds for disciplinary action alone are sufficient to sustain the appropriateness of the relevant disciplinary disposition against an employee, and the allocation of the burden of proof with respect thereto (= the employer)
Summary of the holding
여러 개의 징계사유 중 일부가 인정되지 않더라도 인정되는 다른 일부 징계사유만으로 해당 징계처분의 타당성을 인정하기에 충분한 경우에는 그 징계처분을 유지하여도 위법하지 아니하다. 다만 여러 개의 징계사유 중 일부 징계사유만으로 근로자에 대한 해당 징계처분의 타당성을 인정하기에 충분한지는 해당 기업의 구체적인 상황에 따라 다를 수 있으므로, 사용자가 징계처분에 이르게 된 경위와 주된 징계사유, 전체 징계사유 중 인정된 징계사유의 내용과 비중, 징계사유 중 일부가 인정되지 않은 이유, 해당 징계처분의 종류, 해당 기업이 정하고 있는 징계처분 결정 절차, 해당 기업의 규모·사업 성격 및 징계에 관한 기준과 관행 등에 비추어 인정된 징계사유만으로 동일한 징계처분을 할 가능성이 있는지를 고려하여 해당 징계처분을 유지하는 것이 근로자에게 예측하지 못한 불이익이 되지 않도록 신중하게 판단하여야 한다. 근로기준법 제31조에 의하여 부당해고구제재심판정을 다투는 소송에서 해고의 정당성에 관한 증명책임은 이를 주장하는 사용자가 부담하므로, 인정되는 일부 징계사유만으로 해당 징계처분의 타당성을 인정하기에 충분한지에 대한 증명책임도 사용자가 부담한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
근로기준법 제23조 제1항, 제28조 제1항, 제31조, 행정소송법 제26조[증명책임]
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger