Labor Inspector Arbitrarily Closes Wage Arrears Petition Case

Daejeon Labor Office Incident:
Misconduct Confirmed, But Only a Warning Issued Due to Expired Disciplinary Statute of Limitations

Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office (Photo by Seokbong Mo)

An audit has revealed that a labor inspector at the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office, under the Ministry of Employment and Labor, committed serious procedural misconduct, including arbitrarily closing a wage arrears petition case against the petitioner’s wishes.

However, controversy is expected as the authorities announced a mere "warning"—an internal measure—against the employee, predicting no official severe or minor disciplinary action will be taken due to the expiration of the disciplinary statute of limitations (three years) for the misconduct.

The incident is particularly shocking because it occurred within the Ministry of Employment and Labor itself, an agency mandated to protect the rights and interests of workers.

According to the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office’s audit team’s "Response to Petition Investigation Results," obtained by this outlet, a series of significant mishandlings and procedural violations by the official in charge were uncovered during the processing of a wage arrears complaint submitted in September 2020.

◆ Case arbitrarily closed ignoring the petitioner’s wishes...A compendium of misconduct types

The audit found that the labor inspector responsible for the case committed the following violations:

▲ Arbitrary case closure: The case was closed at the inspector’s discretion even though the petitioner had made an explicit request for continued investigation and proceedings.

▲ Misapplication of legal principles: The incident was incorrectly classified as one that required the petitioner’s consent to prosecute, and thus no action was taken, even though the case did not fall under that criminal category.

▲ Improper handling and inducement of re-petition: Instead of processing the complaint appropriately, the inspector encouraged the petitioner to submit a new petition for the same matter, thereby imposing unnecessary administrative procedures.

▲ Unauthorized omission of reporting procedures: The official omitted the mandated superior review process at their discretion, undermining the agency’s internal verification system and thereby committing a serious violation.

The audit team concluded, “It has been clearly established that the official directly undermined the rights and interests of the petitioner through misconduct and negligence.”

◆ Punishment impossible after three years...‘Slap on the wrist’ expected due to system loophole

Despite the clear evidence of misconduct, it is impossible to pursue meaningful disciplinary action under the National Public Service Act because the statute of limitations for disciplinary action has already expired.

According to Article 83-2 of the National Public Service Act, the disciplinary statute of limitations for public officials is three years from the date the misconduct occurred. Because the improper case closure took place in April 2021, the statute of limitations expired in April 2024.

In line with Supreme Court precedent, the statute of limitations begins when the misconduct occurs, which means, even if wrongdoing is discovered belatedly through an audit or petition, the deadline cannot be extended.

For this reason, the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office announced it would only issue a "warning"—the maximum employment-related penalty currently available to the agency—against the employee in question.

A warning is an administrative, not disciplinary, disposition. It can result in limited personnel disadvantages, such as adjustments to performance evaluation or bonus grade for a period of one year, but no more.

◆ The burden falls squarely on the petitioner...Measures urgently needed

The petitioner, who suffered from the unfair closure of their case, learned of the official’s misconduct only years later, but the labor inspector in question evaded severe punishment by hiding behind the legal expiration of the statute of limitations.

This case is likely to trigger calls for institutional reform and revision of the disciplinary statute of limitations, especially since such neglect and procedural violations occurred inside the Ministry of Employment and Labor, undermining accountability through insufficient investigations and time-barred inquiries.

The petitioner stated, “I am left wondering whether labor inspectors, by virtue of their status as special judicial police officials, are disregarding petitioners too lightly,” and added, “Such misconduct may constitute the crimes of dereliction of duty and abuse of authority. I am determined to fight until the end to clear my name.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.