377 Days of Unauthorized Absence... Left Unaddressed
"Unfair Transfer" Refusal to Comply with Orders
"Public Service Discipline Lax... Strict Standards Must Be Applied"

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH) has been revealed to have paid approximately 80 million won in salary while neglecting an employee who was absent without leave for one year.

According to data submitted by LH to Kim Ki-pyo, a member of the National Assembly Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee from the Democratic Party of Korea, on the 4th, LH ordered employee A, who was working at a construction site office in 2022, to transfer to a new work location. However, it was confirmed that A only attended the new workplace a few times and then was absent without leave for 377 days.

Despite this, A’s supervisors did not take any special measures such as reporting to the audit office during this period and left the situation unattended. It was only after one year of unauthorized absence that the department head contacted A and ordered him to return to work. During this period, A received about 75 million won in salary and 3.2 million won in on-site living expenses, totaling approximately 80 million won.

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH) was found to have paid approximately 80 million won in salary to an employee who had been absent without leave for over a year. [Source=Yonhap News]

According to Assemblyman Kim, LH’s audit office launched a belated investigation after receiving an anonymous tip and dismissed the employee in question. However, only disciplinary actions of three months’ pay reduction and one month’s pay reduction were imposed on two higher-ranking officials responsible for management and supervision. During the audit process, A explained that "he refused the transfer order because he thought it was unreasonable and rented an officetel near his original workplace to perform security duties at the construction site." In response, Assemblyman Kim stated, "If a private company paid salary without attendance for a year, it would be problematic," and argued, "A stricter standard must be applied to the lax work discipline of public enterprises operated with taxpayers’ money."