Employee Discipline: Distinguishing Gross Negligence vs. Ordinary Negligence in South Korea

1. Introduction

When private companies in South Korea implement disciplinary actions against employees, they often distinguish between gross negligence and ordinary negligence. However, clear standards for such distinctions are frequently absent in most cases.

Many private companies refer to the civil service disciplinary system when establishing their own disciplinary standards. Therefore, accurately understanding the criteria for distinguishing gross negligence from ordinary negligence in the civil service disciplinary system is crucial, and these standards can serve as valuable reference materials for private companies’ disciplinary systems in South Korea.

2. Legal Framework of Civil Service Disciplinary System in South Korea

Legal Basis and Disciplinary Structure

South Korea’s civil service disciplinary system is based on Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act (Grounds for Discipline) and Article 69 of the Local Public Officials Act, which stipulate violations of laws and regulations, violations of official duties, neglect of duties, and acts damaging dignity as grounds for discipline.

Disciplinary actions are divided into major penalties including dismissal, removal, demotion, and suspension from duty, and minor penalties including salary reduction and reprimand. Since 2019, disciplinary surcharges can be additionally imposed for misconduct related to money and valuables.

Standards in the Enforcement Regulations of Civil Service Disciplinary Decree

The disciplinary standards in Attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Civil Service Disciplinary Decree stipulate differentiated discipline by distinguishing between “cases where the degree of duty violation is severe and constitutes gross negligence” and “cases where the degree of duty violation is minor and constitutes ordinary negligence.” However, these standards remain abstract, with no specific judgment factors or application criteria specified.

3. Concepts and Distinctions of Gross Negligence and Ordinary Negligence

Characteristics of Gross Negligence

Gross negligence has the following characteristics:

• Serious violation of duty of care equivalent to intentional conduct
• Cases where the result could have been avoided with slight attention but was not done
• Repeated and continuous violation of duties
• Cases where the seriousness of the result was foreseeable but violated nonetheless

Characteristics of Ordinary Negligence

Ordinary negligence is relatively minor negligence with the following characteristics:

• Negligence occurring in the process of sincere and active work performance
• Cases where the degree of duty violation is minor
• Cases caused by simple carelessness or mistakes
• Negligence of a one-time, accidental nature

4. Connection with State Compensation Act’s Right of Recourse

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act recognizes the state’s right of recourse in cases of gross negligence by civil servants, which has practical effects linked to the disciplinary system.

This is significant in that the distinction between gross negligence and ordinary negligence determines not only disciplinary sanctions but also the scope of economic responsibility.

5. Differential Impact on Disciplinary Sanctions

Disciplinary actions are applied differentially according to the degree of negligence. Even for the same violation, if judged as gross negligence, heavier disciplinary action is imposed, while if judged as ordinary negligence, relatively lighter punishment is given.

6. Case Studies of Negligence Classification by Work Type

Subdivision of Work-Related Negligence Cases

In practice, work-related negligence is subdivided and applied as follows:

Cases of Ordinary Negligence Application:

• Document errors due to simple mistakes → Reprimand

Cases of Gross Negligence Application:

• Repeated work delays or significant work errors → Salary reduction or above

Negligence Classification in Money and Valuables Cases

According to Improper Solicitation and Graft Act standards, they are classified as follows:

• Receipt of money and valuables is judged as gross negligence regardless of job relevance
• Intentional receipt of money and valuables: Removal~Dismissal
• Receipt within social norms without reporting: Salary reduction~Reprimand

Differential Application of Traffic Accidents and Drunk Driving

Current drunk driving discipline uses blood alcohol concentration as the core standard, and refusal to take a breathalyzer test is recognized as intentional conduct receiving the heaviest punishment. Attempts to call designated drivers are merely mitigating circumstances and do not constitute grounds for exemption.

7. Key Practical Issues and Institutional Limitations

Structural Ambiguity of Negligence Classification Standards

Current laws do not specify concrete definitions or judgment criteria for gross negligence and ordinary negligence, causing difficulties in practical judgment. The most serious problem is the lack of predictability due to abstract standards such as “duty to maintain dignity.”

This leads to different judgments by different institutions for the same cases, raising questions about the consistency and fairness of disciplinary actions.

8. Conclusion

The distinction between gross negligence and ordinary negligence in South Korea’s civil service disciplinary system is a core factor in determining disciplinary sanctions, but the ambiguity of the current legal framework causes difficulties in consistent practical application.

Particularly, the lack of predictability due to absent concrete judgment criteria and institutional disparities in sanctions are areas requiring urgent institutional improvement. It is time for fair and consistent disciplinary system operation through establishment of clear standards.

Kim & Park Law Firm has recent experience providing professional consultation regarding the distinction between gross negligence and ordinary negligence in corporate discipline matters, helping companies establish accurate and fair disciplinary procedures in South Korea.