This article was published on the ChosunBiz RM Report site at 1:30 p.m. on March 10, 2025.
The game company WEBZEN fired an employee due to a work-related mistake and expense but lost in the first trial of the court following the local and central labor committees. The employee, who has won against the company three times, is from the legal cooperation team responsible for litigation. WEBZEN developed the country's first 3D MMORPG "MU" and ranks 15th in domestic sales.
The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 3 reportedly ruled against the plaintiff in January in a lawsuit filed by WEBZEN against the Central Labor Committee, which sought to annul the ruling that employee A was unfairly dismissed.
Employee A joined WEBZEN in 2007 and worked in the legal cooperation team for about five years starting in 2012. The legal cooperation team is responsible for litigation tasks. However, in 2022, WEBZEN referred A to the personnel committee, claiming that damages occurred because the necessary procedures for recovering the compensation from a trial in which the company won were not conducted in a timely manner, leading to unnecessary expenses from filing additional lawsuits to receive the compensation.
A claimed that he was hospitalized after surgery and did not properly understand the lawsuit details. However, WEBZEN did not accept this claim and fired A.
In response, A filed a redress application with the labor committee, claiming unfair dismissal. Both the Gyeonggi Province local labor committee and the Central Labor Committee supported A in succession. While it is acknowledged that A made a mistake in not timely recovering the damages, the dismissal was deemed excessive. Consequently, WEBZEN filed an administrative lawsuit in 2023 to annul the labor committee's decision.
The Seoul Administrative Court handling the first trial stated, "The fact that A was unaware of the contents of the damage compensation suit and filed an additional lawsuit is an act resulting from negligence rather than intent," and noted, "WEBZEN's dismissal was an abuse of discretion granted to the disciplinary authority."
The court stated, "There are no circumstances to suggest that A made efforts to recover the compensation, and this constitutes a neglect of duty," but also added, "A's case does not appear to correspond to a situation where it would be impossible to continue the employment relationship, and the degree of misconduct seems insufficiently serious."
WEBZEN appealed last month against the first trial ruling. A WEBZEN official said, "The appeal was decided to seek a careful judgment on the grounds for disciplinary action."