Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Scope of Legal Application (Franchise Outlets)” (Unfair Dismissal 349)
- Date2026/04/05 04:10
- Read 180
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was dismissed on procedural grounds at the “scope of legal application (franchise outlets)” stage.
Decision Committee: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9182 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.23 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: Considering that each workplace hired its own employees and entered into separate employment contracts, enrolled them in social insurance, and paid wages separately; that the two workplaces were geographically separated; that the user’s spouse, who is the representative of the nearest franchise outlet, Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch, can be regarded as having trained the employees working at the workplace at the time of its opening in place of head office staff; and that there was no evidence that employees of the workplace and employees of Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch moved between the two workplaces and worked without distinction, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a workplace related to a Cheongdam Pizza franchise outlet, where an employee was dismissed and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employee claimed that the dismissal was unfair and sought relief, but the Commission first examined whether the workplace in question fell within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act. As a result, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission decided to dismiss the case.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the two workplaces operated in the form of franchise outlets (the workplace at issue and Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch) can be regarded in substance as a single workplace and, therefore, whether they fall under a workplace with five or more regular employees so as to be subject to the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that each workplace hired its own employees and entered into separate employment contracts; that social insurance enrollment and wage payment were carried out independently at each workplace; that the two workplaces were geographically separated; that it was difficult to regard the fact that the user’s spouse, as the representative of a nearby franchise outlet, supported training at the time of opening as meaning that overall personnel and labor management were operated in an integrated manner; and that there were no circumstances confirming that employees of the two workplaces moved between them and worked without distinction.
In light of these factors, the panel determined that it was difficult to regard the two workplaces as a single workplace in substance.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was found not to fall under a “workplace with five or more regular employees” under the Labor Standards Act and thus did not satisfy the requirements for applying for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The application was therefore dismissed without a hearing on the merits.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary first to check whether the number of regular employees at the place of work is fewer than five, and whether there is any room to regard it as a single workplace in terms of legal application because it is in substance operated in an integrated manner with another workplace. If substantial integration between workplaces is not recognized in terms of authority over personnel, wage payment, social insurance, place of work, rotation of employees, etc., you should be aware that the Labor Relations Commission may dismiss the application for remedy for unfair dismissal itself.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating multiple franchise outlets or branches, it is important to recognize that how personnel, wages, social insurance, and accounting are separated and managed by workplace becomes a key criterion in determining the scope of application of the Labor Standards Act. If operations are in fact integrated while only formally separated so as to appear as workplaces with fewer than five employees, there is a risk that they will be recognized as a single workplace in the event of a dispute. Accordingly, employers should clearly organize their organizational, personnel, and financial operation systems, and review legal risks with potential collective or unfair dismissal disputes in mind.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account that each workplace hired its own employees and entered into separate employment contracts, enrolled them in social insurance, and paid wages separately; that the two workplaces were geographically separated; that the user’s spouse, who is the representative of the nearest franchise outlet, Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch, can be regarded as having trained the employees working at the workplace at the time of its opening in place of head office staff; and that there was no evidence that employees of the workplace and employees of Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch moved between the two workplaces and worked without distinction, it was concluded that the workplace and Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch cannot be regarded in substance as a single workplace, and that, as the number of regular employees at the workplace is fewer than five, it does not fall within the scope of application of the remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account that each workplace hired its own employees and entered into separate employment contracts, enrolled them in social insurance, and paid wages separately; that the two workplaces were geographically separated; that the user’s spouse, who is the representative of the nearest franchise outlet, Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch, can be regarded as having trained the employees working at the workplace at the time of its opening in place of head office staff; and that there was no evidence that employees of the workplace and employees of Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch moved between the two workplaces and worked without distinction, it was concluded that the workplace and Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch cannot be regarded in substance as a single workplace, and that, as the number of regular employees at the workplace is fewer than five, it does not fall within the scope of application of the remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Justifiability of Reassignment (Reassignment Following Termination of Service Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Existence of Dismissal (Text Message After Interview)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, scope of legal application (franchise outlets), 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, “‘Justifiability of Reassignment (Reassignment Following Termination of Service Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to scope of legal application (franchise outlets) can be viewed together in the “Scope of Legal Application (Franchise Outlets) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was dismissed on procedural grounds at the “scope of legal application (franchise outlets)” stage.
Decision Committee: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9182 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.23 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: Considering that each workplace hired its own employees and entered into separate employment contracts, enrolled them in social insurance, and paid wages separately; that the two workplaces were geographically separated; that the user’s spouse, who is the representative of the nearest franchise outlet, Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch, can be regarded as having trained the employees working at the workplace at the time of its opening in place of head office staff; and that there was no evidence that employees of the workplace and employees of Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch moved between the two workplaces and worked without distinction, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case concerns a workplace related to a Cheongdam Pizza franchise outlet, where an employee was dismissed and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employee claimed that the dismissal was unfair and sought relief, but the Commission first examined whether the workplace in question fell within the scope of application of the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act. As a result, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission decided to dismiss the case.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the two workplaces operated in the form of franchise outlets (the workplace at issue and Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch) can be regarded in substance as a single workplace and, therefore, whether they fall under a workplace with five or more regular employees so as to be subject to the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that each workplace hired its own employees and entered into separate employment contracts; that social insurance enrollment and wage payment were carried out independently at each workplace; that the two workplaces were geographically separated; that it was difficult to regard the fact that the user’s spouse, as the representative of a nearby franchise outlet, supported training at the time of opening as meaning that overall personnel and labor management were operated in an integrated manner; and that there were no circumstances confirming that employees of the two workplaces moved between them and worked without distinction.
In light of these factors, the panel determined that it was difficult to regard the two workplaces as a single workplace in substance.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was found not to fall under a “workplace with five or more regular employees” under the Labor Standards Act and thus did not satisfy the requirements for applying for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The application was therefore dismissed without a hearing on the merits.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary first to check whether the number of regular employees at the place of work is fewer than five, and whether there is any room to regard it as a single workplace in terms of legal application because it is in substance operated in an integrated manner with another workplace. If substantial integration between workplaces is not recognized in terms of authority over personnel, wage payment, social insurance, place of work, rotation of employees, etc., you should be aware that the Labor Relations Commission may dismiss the application for remedy for unfair dismissal itself.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating multiple franchise outlets or branches, it is important to recognize that how personnel, wages, social insurance, and accounting are separated and managed by workplace becomes a key criterion in determining the scope of application of the Labor Standards Act. If operations are in fact integrated while only formally separated so as to appear as workplaces with fewer than five employees, there is a risk that they will be recognized as a single workplace in the event of a dispute. Accordingly, employers should clearly organize their organizational, personnel, and financial operation systems, and review legal risks with potential collective or unfair dismissal disputes in mind.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account that each workplace hired its own employees and entered into separate employment contracts, enrolled them in social insurance, and paid wages separately; that the two workplaces were geographically separated; that the user’s spouse, who is the representative of the nearest franchise outlet, Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch, can be regarded as having trained the employees working at the workplace at the time of its opening in place of head office staff; and that there was no evidence that employees of the workplace and employees of Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch moved between the two workplaces and worked without distinction, it was concluded that the workplace and Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch cannot be regarded in substance as a single workplace, and that, as the number of regular employees at the workplace is fewer than five, it does not fall within the scope of application of the remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account that each workplace hired its own employees and entered into separate employment contracts, enrolled them in social insurance, and paid wages separately; that the two workplaces were geographically separated; that the user’s spouse, who is the representative of the nearest franchise outlet, Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch, can be regarded as having trained the employees working at the workplace at the time of its opening in place of head office staff; and that there was no evidence that employees of the workplace and employees of Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch moved between the two workplaces and worked without distinction, it was concluded that the workplace and Cheongdam Pizza Yangsan Branch cannot be regarded in substance as a single workplace, and that, as the number of regular employees at the workplace is fewer than five, it does not fall within the scope of application of the remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Justifiability of Reassignment (Reassignment Following Termination of Service Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Existence of Dismissal (Text Message After Interview)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, scope of legal application (franchise outlets), 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, “‘Justifiability of Reassignment (Reassignment Following Termination of Service Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to scope of legal application (franchise outlets) can be viewed together in the “Scope of Legal Application (Franchise Outlets) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
