Workplace Harassment in Korea, Part 6: When the Reporting System Itself Is Abused

An employee files a harassment report against a colleague. Then another. Then five more, over the following months, each one thin on specifics. This is where a legitimate reporting system could be used for unintended purposes.

This is Part 6 of our series on workplace harassment under Korean labor law. Part 1 covered the basic legal definition. Part 2 covered the employer's investigation duty. Part 3 covered protecting the affected employee during that investigation. Part 4 covered how a report reaches the company, internally and externally. Part 5 covered what "exceeding the reasonable scope of work" actually means. This post covers a topic of what happens when the reporting system itself is potentially misused.

Why the Manual Added This

Korea's harassment reporting numbers have grown fast. According to MOEL's own figures, the number of harassment cases handled by labor authorities rose from 8,961 in 2022 to 16,373 in 2025. Some of that growth reflects real harassment finally being reported.

MOEL’s manual is careful here. It does not suggest that reports should be treated with suspicion by default. The employer's duty to investigate every report objectively, discussed in Part 2 of this series, remains unconditional. What the manual adds is guidance for the narrower situation where a pattern of reporting itself, once investigated, turns out to be the problem.

Three New Cases the Manual Cites

The manual points to three recent decisions where courts found that misuse of the reporting system could itself support disciplinary action against the reporting employee.

Repeated, groundless reports disrupting the workplace. In a decision from the Seoul Central District Court dated December 11, 2025 (Case No. 2024Gahap50832), an employee filed multiple harassment reports without clear supporting grounds. The court found this pattern obstructed business operations and damaged workplace relationships and order.

A pattern tied to ongoing interpersonal friction. In a decision from the Seoul Administrative Court dated January 29, 2026 (Case No. 2025Guhap52141), an employee experienced significant friction with a number of colleagues over a ten-month period and filed harassment reports seven times during that span, receiving paid leave as a result each time.

A report filed to head off discipline. In a decision from the Seoul Administrative Court dated February 12, 2026 (Case No. 2025Guhap54304), an employee filed a false report for the specific purpose of defending against disciplinary action already pending against that employee.

In each case, the court found that the underlying conduct could constitute valid grounds for discipline against the reporting employee. None of the three decisions weakens the employer's investigation duty. Each simply confirms that a fair, objective investigation can, on the facts, point toward the reporting employee's own conduct rather than the accused's.

What This Does Not Change

Two points are worth stating plainly, because this is an area where employers can overcorrect.

First, the employer's duty under Article 76-3, Paragraph 2 of the Labor Standards Act to investigate objectively applies to every report, without exception, regardless of how many reports that same employee has filed before. A history of prior reports is never, by itself, a reason to investigate a new report less carefully.

Second, the protection against retaliation under Article 76-3, Paragraph 6 still applies to a reporting employee unless and until an objective investigation actually establishes that the report was groundless or made in bad faith. An employer cannot treat a report as presumptively false because the same employee has reported before, and disciplining a reporting employee without that underlying investigation carries the same criminal exposure discussed in Part 3 of this series.

In other words, the manual gives employers a tool for the genuine misuse case. It does not give employers permission to treat frequent reporting as inherently suspicious.

What This Means for Employers in Korea

Investigate every report the same way, regardless of the reporting employee's history.

Document patterns objectively, not subjectively. If an employee's reports repeatedly lack specific, investigable factual claims, or a report appears timed to counter separate disciplinary action, record that observation as part of the investigation record itself, not as an assumption.

Series Note

This Part 6 covered the manual's new guidance on abuse of the harassment reporting system. It follows Part 1 (the legal definition), Part 2 (the investigation duty), Part 3 (victim protection during the investigation), Part 4 (how reports reach the company), and Part 5 (what exceeding the reasonable scope of work means).

---

This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on a specific workplace harassment issue in Korea, please consult qualified Korean legal counsel.

For any inquiries, please feel free to contact sjchun@seoulcounsel.com.