Transferred Severance Pay to Own Account After Early Settlement
Illegally Took Out Loans Using Employee's Name
A court ruling has affirmed that the dismissal of an executive who embezzled severance pay from an employee with developmental disabilities and illegally took out loans using the employee's name while working at a facility for people with disabilities is justified.
The Seoul Administrative Court, Administrative Division 12 (Presiding Judge Kang Jae-won), recently ruled against Mr. A, who worked as the secretary-general of a facility under a disability association, in a lawsuit he filed against the Chairperson of the Central Labor Commission seeking to overturn a retrial decision on unfair dismissal, according to a report by Yonhap News on the 9th.
Mr. A, who joined the facility in 2009 and served as secretary-general, was responsible for tasks related to retirement pensions. He managed issues such as basic living benefits and debts for Mr. B, an employee with developmental disabilities working at the facility, and abused his access to Mr. B's digital certificate to embezzle Mr. B's severance pay by receiving an early settlement and transferring the funds to his own account. Additionally, it was revealed that Mr. A illegally opened a bank account in Mr. B's name and embezzled approximately 78 million KRW through loans taken out under Mr. B's name.
The association held a personnel committee meeting and resolved to dismiss Mr. A, citing 11 instances of misconduct causing damages exceeding 110 million KRW. Mr. A claimed unfair dismissal and filed a relief application with the Seoul Regional Labor Commission, which was dismissed. After appealing to the Central Labor Commission and receiving the same outcome, he filed an administrative lawsuit.
Mr. A argued that four of the 11 alleged damages involving Mr. B were cleared during the investigation phase, and the remaining seven were merely borrowed funds. He also claimed unfair dismissal, stating that the notice for the disciplinary committee hearing was delivered late, whereas it should have been given at least three days prior, preventing his attendance. However, the court did not accept these claims.
The court stated, "The misconduct involved intentionally causing harm to a victim who was in a position to be helped," adding, "This constitutes a significant breach of fundamental duties, with high illegality and blameworthiness, and a guilty verdict has already been finalized." The court also noted, "Mr. A's misconduct damaged the external reputation of the facility for people with disabilities." Regarding Mr. A's claim that his right to defense was violated because he received the hearing notice late and could not attend the personnel committee, the court judged that Mr. A deliberately delayed receiving the notice.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
