Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Scope of Legal Application (Number of Regular Employees at Three Stores)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 493)
- Date2026/05/29 04:13
- Read 66
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was dismissed on procedural grounds on the issue of “scope of legal application (number of regular employees at three stores).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae68 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.18 · Case Number: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: (i) The employee claimed that the three stores in question were in substance a single workplace, but this could not be verified based on the materials submitted; (ii) Based on the monthly work status sheets, payroll ledgers, etc., the number of regular employees at the workplace was calculated to be fewer than five. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the workplace employed fewer than five regular employees and therefore did not fall within the scope of application for an unfair dismissal remedy. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. However, the application was dismissed on the ground that the key issue was whether the workplace employed fewer than five regular employees. The employee argued that the three stores were in substance a single workplace and sought the application of the Labor Standards Act and the unfair dismissal remedy procedures. The Labor Relations Commission, however, did not accept this argument in light of the materials submitted. Drawing on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, this article examines the significance of the number of regular employees and the criteria for determining whether multiple locations constitute a single workplace.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “three stores located in different places can be regarded in substance as a single workplace, such that, when the total headcount is aggregated, the business should be considered a workplace with at least five regular employees and thus subject to an application for an unfair dismissal remedy.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
With respect to the employee’s claim that the three stores constituted a single workplace, the decision panel focused on the fact that no materials had been submitted that could substantiate substantive integration, such as integrated operation of human and physical facilities or unified personnel and accounting management. In addition, based on objective materials such as monthly work status sheets and payroll ledgers, the number of regular employees at each workplace was calculated and found to be fewer than five. The panel also considered that the workplace did not satisfy the “at least five regular employees” requirement set forth in Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 7-2 of its Enforcement Decree. As a result, the panel determined that the business in question was a workplace employing fewer than five regular employees, that it was therefore not subject to an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under the Labor Standards Act, and dismissed the employee’s application.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is not sufficient merely to feel that “the dismissal seems unfair.” You must first confirm whether the workplace where you were employed qualifies as a “workplace with at least five regular employees” under the Labor Standards Act. If you intend to argue that multiple stores should be treated as a single workplace, you will need to prepare concrete materials showing not only that the same person is the employer, but also that personnel, payroll, and accounting are operated in an integrated manner, that there is mutual interchange of personnel, and that there is a unified, substantive chain of command.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the calculation of the number of regular employees and the delineation of workplace units can become key issues in disputes. It is therefore important to manage basic records consistently, such as work status sheets, payroll ledgers, and four major social insurance enrollment details. When operating multiple stores, depending on how personnel, accounting, and organizational structures are designed and operated, they may be evaluated as a single workplace. Accordingly, it is advisable to review in advance the actual mode of operation and associated legal risks, and, if necessary, consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) The employee claimed that the three stores were in substance a single workplace, but this could not be verified based on the materials submitted; (ii) Based on the monthly work status sheets, payroll ledgers, etc., the number of regular employees at the workplace was calculated to be fewer than five. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the business was a workplace employing fewer than five regular employees and therefore did not fall within the scope of application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
(i) The employee claimed that the three stores were in substance a single workplace, but this could not be verified based on the materials submitted; (ii) Based on the monthly work status sheets, payroll ledgers, etc., the number of regular employees at the workplace was calculated to be fewer than five. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the business was a workplace employing fewer than five regular employees and therefore did not fall within the scope of application for an unfair dismissal remedy. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Requirements for Legal Application (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal/Personnel Action Decision on “Justification of Transfer (Resolving Imbalance in Manpower)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, scope of legal application (number of regular employees at three stores), 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 ‘Requirements for Legal Application (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to “scope of legal application (number of regular employees at three stores)” can be found in the “Scope of Legal Application (Number of Regular Employees at Three Stores) Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was dismissed on procedural grounds on the issue of “scope of legal application (number of regular employees at three stores).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae68 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.18 · Case Number: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues: (i) The employee claimed that the three stores in question were in substance a single workplace, but this could not be verified based on the materials submitted; (ii) Based on the monthly work status sheets, payroll ledgers, etc., the number of regular employees at the workplace was calculated to be fewer than five. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the workplace employed fewer than five regular employees and therefore did not fall within the scope of application for an unfair dismissal remedy. /
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. However, the application was dismissed on the ground that the key issue was whether the workplace employed fewer than five regular employees. The employee argued that the three stores were in substance a single workplace and sought the application of the Labor Standards Act and the unfair dismissal remedy procedures. The Labor Relations Commission, however, did not accept this argument in light of the materials submitted. Drawing on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, this article examines the significance of the number of regular employees and the criteria for determining whether multiple locations constitute a single workplace.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “three stores located in different places can be regarded in substance as a single workplace, such that, when the total headcount is aggregated, the business should be considered a workplace with at least five regular employees and thus subject to an application for an unfair dismissal remedy.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
With respect to the employee’s claim that the three stores constituted a single workplace, the decision panel focused on the fact that no materials had been submitted that could substantiate substantive integration, such as integrated operation of human and physical facilities or unified personnel and accounting management. In addition, based on objective materials such as monthly work status sheets and payroll ledgers, the number of regular employees at each workplace was calculated and found to be fewer than five. The panel also considered that the workplace did not satisfy the “at least five regular employees” requirement set forth in Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 7-2 of its Enforcement Decree. As a result, the panel determined that the business in question was a workplace employing fewer than five regular employees, that it was therefore not subject to an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under the Labor Standards Act, and dismissed the employee’s application.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is not sufficient merely to feel that “the dismissal seems unfair.” You must first confirm whether the workplace where you were employed qualifies as a “workplace with at least five regular employees” under the Labor Standards Act. If you intend to argue that multiple stores should be treated as a single workplace, you will need to prepare concrete materials showing not only that the same person is the employer, but also that personnel, payroll, and accounting are operated in an integrated manner, that there is mutual interchange of personnel, and that there is a unified, substantive chain of command.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the calculation of the number of regular employees and the delineation of workplace units can become key issues in disputes. It is therefore important to manage basic records consistently, such as work status sheets, payroll ledgers, and four major social insurance enrollment details. When operating multiple stores, depending on how personnel, accounting, and organizational structures are designed and operated, they may be evaluated as a single workplace. Accordingly, it is advisable to review in advance the actual mode of operation and associated legal risks, and, if necessary, consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(i) The employee claimed that the three stores were in substance a single workplace, but this could not be verified based on the materials submitted; (ii) Based on the monthly work status sheets, payroll ledgers, etc., the number of regular employees at the workplace was calculated to be fewer than five. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the business was a workplace employing fewer than five regular employees and therefore did not fall within the scope of application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
(i) The employee claimed that the three stores were in substance a single workplace, but this could not be verified based on the materials submitted; (ii) Based on the monthly work status sheets, payroll ledgers, etc., the number of regular employees at the workplace was calculated to be fewer than five. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the business was a workplace employing fewer than five regular employees and therefore did not fall within the scope of application for an unfair dismissal remedy. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Requirements for Legal Application (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal/Personnel Action Decision on “Justification of Transfer (Resolving Imbalance in Manpower)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, scope of legal application (number of regular employees at three stores), 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 ‘Requirements for Legal Application (Fewer than Five Regular Employees)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to “scope of legal application (number of regular employees at three stores)” can be found in the “Scope of Legal Application (Number of Regular Employees at Three Stores) Related Decisions” section.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
