Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Number of Regular Employees (Non-Operation Immediately After Business Transfer)” (Unfair Dismissal 170)
- Date2026/02/02 04:08
- Read 230
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “number of regular employees (non-operation immediately after business transfer).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9140 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 17, 2025 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employer acquired the business on 27 October 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, a new employer acquired a business and then cancelled a hiring decision immediately thereafter. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the statutory requirement regarding the number of regular employees under the Labor Standards Act was satisfied, and determined whether this business fell within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy system.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employer acquires a business and opens it, and then cancels a hiring decision, if there is no record of actual operation of the business and no record of employing workers during the one month prior to opening, does the business fail to meet the requirement of having at least five regular employees and therefore fall outside the scope of cases eligible for an unfair dismissal remedy before the Labor Relations Commission?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employer acquired the business and opened it as of 27 October 2025; that during the one-month period prior to the cancellation of the hiring (17 September 2025 to 16 October 2025) there was no actual operation or running of the business; and that there were no workers who provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages during that period, so that the number of regular employees was zero.
Accordingly, the panel held that this dismissal did not concern a “business with at least five regular employees,” which is a prerequisite for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore it was appropriate to dismiss the case without proceeding to a decision on the merits.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to apply for a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is essential first to confirm whether the business employs at least five regular employees as required under Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act. In particular, in periods immediately after a business transfer or at the initial stage of opening, where there has been no actual operation and no provision of labor for wages at all, you should be aware that an application for remedy for unfair dismissal itself may be dismissed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly organize and retain records of the timing of the business transfer and opening, the actual date of commencement of operations, employee hiring, and wage payment details. You must be able to prove the days of operation and the record of employing workers during the period used to calculate the number of regular employees (generally the one month prior to the occurrence of the legal event such as dismissal), so that you can properly contest whether the case falls within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
Even in cases like this one, where the number of regular employees is determined to be fewer than five, once the number of employees increases in the future, the Labor Standards Act and the unfair dismissal system will apply in full. Therefore, it is advisable to consult in advance with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& regarding the criteria for calculating the number of regular employees and the procedures for dismissal and redundancy.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer acquired the business and opened it as of 27 October 2025. During the one-month period prior to the cancellation of the hiring (17 September 2025 to 16 October 2025), which is the period for calculating the number of regular employees, there was no operation or running of the business, and there were no workers who provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. Therefore, the number of regular employees was zero. Accordingly, the business was one with fewer than five regular employees and was not subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employer acquired the business and opened it as of 27 October 2025. During the one-month period prior to the cancellation of the hiring (17 September 2025 to 16 October 2025), which is the period for calculating the number of regular employees, there was no operation or running of the business, and there were no workers who provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. Therefore, the number of regular employees was zero. Accordingly, the business was one with fewer than five regular employees and was not subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Refusal to Renew (Kick to Hoist)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, number of regular employees (non-operation immediately after business transfer), others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Refusal to Renew (Kick to Hoist)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to the number of regular employees (non-operation immediately after business transfer) at “List of Decisions Related to Number of Regular Employees (Non-Operation Immediately After Business Transfer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “number of regular employees (non-operation immediately after business transfer).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9140 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 17, 2025 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employer acquired the business on 27 October 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, a new employer acquired a business and then cancelled a hiring decision immediately thereafter. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on whether the statutory requirement regarding the number of regular employees under the Labor Standards Act was satisfied, and determined whether this business fell within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy system.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When an employer acquires a business and opens it, and then cancels a hiring decision, if there is no record of actual operation of the business and no record of employing workers during the one month prior to opening, does the business fail to meet the requirement of having at least five regular employees and therefore fall outside the scope of cases eligible for an unfair dismissal remedy before the Labor Relations Commission?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employer acquired the business and opened it as of 27 October 2025; that during the one-month period prior to the cancellation of the hiring (17 September 2025 to 16 October 2025) there was no actual operation or running of the business; and that there were no workers who provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages during that period, so that the number of regular employees was zero.
Accordingly, the panel held that this dismissal did not concern a “business with at least five regular employees,” which is a prerequisite for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore it was appropriate to dismiss the case without proceeding to a decision on the merits.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to apply for a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is essential first to confirm whether the business employs at least five regular employees as required under Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act. In particular, in periods immediately after a business transfer or at the initial stage of opening, where there has been no actual operation and no provision of labor for wages at all, you should be aware that an application for remedy for unfair dismissal itself may be dismissed.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly organize and retain records of the timing of the business transfer and opening, the actual date of commencement of operations, employee hiring, and wage payment details. You must be able to prove the days of operation and the record of employing workers during the period used to calculate the number of regular employees (generally the one month prior to the occurrence of the legal event such as dismissal), so that you can properly contest whether the case falls within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy before the Labor Relations Commission.
Even in cases like this one, where the number of regular employees is determined to be fewer than five, once the number of employees increases in the future, the Labor Standards Act and the unfair dismissal system will apply in full. Therefore, it is advisable to consult in advance with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& regarding the criteria for calculating the number of regular employees and the procedures for dismissal and redundancy.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer acquired the business and opened it as of 27 October 2025. During the one-month period prior to the cancellation of the hiring (17 September 2025 to 16 October 2025), which is the period for calculating the number of regular employees, there was no operation or running of the business, and there were no workers who provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. Therefore, the number of regular employees was zero. Accordingly, the business was one with fewer than five regular employees and was not subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employer acquired the business and opened it as of 27 October 2025. During the one-month period prior to the cancellation of the hiring (17 September 2025 to 16 October 2025), which is the period for calculating the number of regular employees, there was no operation or running of the business, and there were no workers who provided labor in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. Therefore, the number of regular employees was zero. Accordingly, the business was one with fewer than five regular employees and was not subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Refusal to Renew (Kick to Hoist)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, number of regular employees (non-operation immediately after business transfer), others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Refusal to Renew (Kick to Hoist)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to the number of regular employees (non-operation immediately after business transfer) at “List of Decisions Related to Number of Regular Employees (Non-Operation Immediately After Business Transfer).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
