Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Number of Regular Employees (Excluding Employees of Overseas Local Corporations)” (Unfair Dismissal 409)
- Date2026/04/27 04:12
- Read 146
This case concerns a decision on unfair dismissal that was dismissed on procedural grounds at the stage of examining the issue of “number of regular employees (excluding employees of overseas local corporations).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded by dismissal on procedural grounds in relation to the issue of “number of regular employees (excluding employees of overseas local corporations).”
Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9206 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) During the calculation period, the employees who acquired insured status under employment insurance as belonging to the employer in this case were confirmed to be three in total, namely the employee in this case, Moon ○-ung, and Chae ○-yeon; (ii) with respect to the overseas local corporation, it is not permissible to include employees of an overseas local corporation, to whom Korean law does not apply, in the number of regular employees of the employer in this case merely because the employee in this case was invited to a KakaoTalk group chat room; in light of these points, during the calculation period...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal against the employer’s dismissal, but the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that the requirement regarding the number of regular employees was not satisfied. The Labor Relations Commission examined whether the case fell within the scope of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, focusing on the number of employees belonging to the employer’s domestic entity and whether employees of an overseas local corporation should be included.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether “employees working at an overseas local corporation, who are merely included together in a KakaoTalk group chat, can be counted toward the employer’s number of regular employees so that the workplace can be regarded as a ‘business or workplace employing five or more regular employees,’ which is a requirement for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, during the calculation period, only three employees, including the applicant, had acquired insured status under employment insurance as belonging to the employer in this case; that the overseas local corporation is a separate legal entity to which domestic law does not apply; and that employees of the overseas local corporation cannot be regarded as regular employees of the employer in this case merely because they were invited together to a KakaoTalk group chat room. In light of these considerations,
the Commission held that the number of regular employees during the calculation period must be deemed to be fewer than five, and therefore the business or workplace does not fall within the scope of application of Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act and the provisions on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
As a rule, an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act is available only in respect of businesses or workplaces that employ five or more regular employees. Accordingly, when preparing an application for remedy, you should first confirm whether the requirement regarding the “number of regular employees” is satisfied. At this time, it is advisable to organize, based on objective materials, the number of employees at your workplace, including whether they have acquired insured status under employment insurance and whether they are in fact employees under the direction and supervision of the employer.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly separate the organizational structure, accounting, and employment relationships of the domestic corporation and the overseas local corporation, and to manage HR and labor records, such as employment insurance enrollment status, in a consistent manner. To reduce disputes related to the calculation of the number of regular employees, employers should review in advance the calculation methods set out in the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act and the criteria presented in decisions of the Labor Relations Commission and court precedents, and adjust their HR and organizational structure to reflect the actual business operation.
In this type of case, both employees and employers must accurately understand the criteria for calculating the number of regular employees and the principles for distinguishing between domestic and overseas corporations. By organizing in advance the relevant materials and factual circumstances in line with these criteria, they will be better positioned to effectively substantiate their arguments before the Labor Relations Commission in the event of a dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
(i) During the calculation period, the employees who acquired insured status under employment insurance as belonging to the employer in this case were confirmed to be three in total, namely the employee in this case, Moon ○-ung, and Chae ○-yeon; (ii) with respect to the overseas local corporation, it is not permissible to include employees of an overseas local corporation, to whom Korean law does not apply, in the number of regular employees of the employer in this case merely because the employee in this case was invited to a KakaoTalk group chat room. In light of these considerations, the number of regular employees during the calculation period is fewer than five, and therefore the case does not fall within the scope of application of the provisions on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(i) During the calculation period, the employees who acquired insured status under employment insurance as belonging to the employer in this case were confirmed to be three in total, namely the employee in this case, Moon ○-ung, and Chae ○-yeon; (ii) with respect to the overseas local corporation, it is not permissible to include employees of an overseas local corporation, to whom Korean law does not apply, in the number of regular employees of the employer in this case merely because the employee in this case was invited to a KakaoTalk group chat room. In light of these considerations, the number of regular employees during the calculation period is fewer than five, and therefore the case does not fall within the scope of application of the provisions on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Contract Renewal (Dual Contracts of 15 Hours per Week and 40 Hours per Week)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement Made in a Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, number of regular employees (excluding employees of overseas local corporations), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Access to Electronic Medical Records)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the number of regular employees (excluding employees of overseas local corporations) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Number of Regular Employees (Excluding Employees of Overseas Local Corporations).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded by dismissal on procedural grounds in relation to the issue of “number of regular employees (excluding employees of overseas local corporations).”
Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9206 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: (i) During the calculation period, the employees who acquired insured status under employment insurance as belonging to the employer in this case were confirmed to be three in total, namely the employee in this case, Moon ○-ung, and Chae ○-yeon; (ii) with respect to the overseas local corporation, it is not permissible to include employees of an overseas local corporation, to whom Korean law does not apply, in the number of regular employees of the employer in this case merely because the employee in this case was invited to a KakaoTalk group chat room; in light of these points, during the calculation period...
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal against the employer’s dismissal, but the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that the requirement regarding the number of regular employees was not satisfied. The Labor Relations Commission examined whether the case fell within the scope of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, focusing on the number of employees belonging to the employer’s domestic entity and whether employees of an overseas local corporation should be included.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is whether “employees working at an overseas local corporation, who are merely included together in a KakaoTalk group chat, can be counted toward the employer’s number of regular employees so that the workplace can be regarded as a ‘business or workplace employing five or more regular employees,’ which is a requirement for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, during the calculation period, only three employees, including the applicant, had acquired insured status under employment insurance as belonging to the employer in this case; that the overseas local corporation is a separate legal entity to which domestic law does not apply; and that employees of the overseas local corporation cannot be regarded as regular employees of the employer in this case merely because they were invited together to a KakaoTalk group chat room. In light of these considerations,
the Commission held that the number of regular employees during the calculation period must be deemed to be fewer than five, and therefore the business or workplace does not fall within the scope of application of Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act and the provisions on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
As a rule, an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act is available only in respect of businesses or workplaces that employ five or more regular employees. Accordingly, when preparing an application for remedy, you should first confirm whether the requirement regarding the “number of regular employees” is satisfied. At this time, it is advisable to organize, based on objective materials, the number of employees at your workplace, including whether they have acquired insured status under employment insurance and whether they are in fact employees under the direction and supervision of the employer.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly separate the organizational structure, accounting, and employment relationships of the domestic corporation and the overseas local corporation, and to manage HR and labor records, such as employment insurance enrollment status, in a consistent manner. To reduce disputes related to the calculation of the number of regular employees, employers should review in advance the calculation methods set out in the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act and the criteria presented in decisions of the Labor Relations Commission and court precedents, and adjust their HR and organizational structure to reflect the actual business operation.
In this type of case, both employees and employers must accurately understand the criteria for calculating the number of regular employees and the principles for distinguishing between domestic and overseas corporations. By organizing in advance the relevant materials and factual circumstances in line with these criteria, they will be better positioned to effectively substantiate their arguments before the Labor Relations Commission in the event of a dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
(i) During the calculation period, the employees who acquired insured status under employment insurance as belonging to the employer in this case were confirmed to be three in total, namely the employee in this case, Moon ○-ung, and Chae ○-yeon; (ii) with respect to the overseas local corporation, it is not permissible to include employees of an overseas local corporation, to whom Korean law does not apply, in the number of regular employees of the employer in this case merely because the employee in this case was invited to a KakaoTalk group chat room. In light of these considerations, the number of regular employees during the calculation period is fewer than five, and therefore the case does not fall within the scope of application of the provisions on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(i) During the calculation period, the employees who acquired insured status under employment insurance as belonging to the employer in this case were confirmed to be three in total, namely the employee in this case, Moon ○-ung, and Chae ○-yeon; (ii) with respect to the overseas local corporation, it is not permissible to include employees of an overseas local corporation, to whom Korean law does not apply, in the number of regular employees of the employer in this case merely because the employee in this case was invited to a KakaoTalk group chat room. In light of these considerations, the number of regular employees during the calculation period is fewer than five, and therefore the case does not fall within the scope of application of the provisions on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Contract Renewal (Dual Contracts of 15 Hours per Week and 40 Hours per Week)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement Made in a Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, number of regular employees (excluding employees of overseas local corporations), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Severity (Unauthorized Access to Electronic Medical Records)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the number of regular employees (excluding employees of overseas local corporations) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Number of Regular Employees (Excluding Employees of Overseas Local Corporations).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
