This case on the issue of “dismissal (fewer than five regular employees)” ended with a procedural dismissal. [Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the application was procedurally dismissed on the ground of “dismissal (fewer than five regular employees).” Adjudicating body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae467 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-02 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issues: There was no basis to regard Vice President Park ○‑su and Executive Director Kim ○‑hee as employees of the company in this case, and it was confirmed that, during the one‑month calculation period prior to the date of dismissal, the number of workers who provided labor at the workplace for the purpose of receiving wages was four in total (Lee ○‑su, An ○‑rim, and the applicants). Accordingly, the company was found to be a business employing fewer than five regular employees, and therefore this application for remedy fell under Article 60(1)6 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which provides that an application shall be dismissed where “it is evident that the remedy sought cannot be realized under law or in fact” … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the application for remedy filed with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission was dismissed on the basis of the number of regular employees and the employee status of certain individuals. As in many cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, this is a typical example in which, at the Labor Relations Commission stage, the Commission first strictly examined the “requirements for filing an application for remedy,” rather than the “substantive unfairness of the dismissal” itself. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case were whether “the company against which the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed actually employed five or more regular employees, and whether individuals designated as Vice President and Executive Director could be counted as ‘employees’ under the Labor Standards Act.” In other words, the core issue was whether the legal prerequisites for seeking unfair dismissal relief before the Labor Relations Commission (number of employees and employee status) were satisfied. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that there was no basis to regard Vice President Park ○‑su and Executive Director Kim ○‑hee as employees who provided subordinate labor to the company for the purpose of receiving wages; that, during the one‑month period prior to the date of dismissal, the number of persons who provided labor for the purpose of receiving wages at the workplace was four in total (Lee ○‑su, An ○‑rim, and the applicants); and that, under Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act and related provisions, the unfair dismissal remedy system does not apply to businesses employing fewer than five regular employees. Accordingly, the Commission determined that the company in this case is a business employing fewer than five regular employees and therefore is not subject to the dismissal‑remedy system under the Labor Standards Act. Thus, before examining the legitimacy of the dismissal itself, the Commission held that this dismissal fell under Article 60(1)6 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which provides for dismissal of an application “where it is evident that the remedy sought cannot be realized under law or in fact,” and dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, even if you believe you have been unfairly dismissed, you must first confirm whether your workplace employs at least five regular employees and how persons such as executives and family members are evaluated under the criteria for employee status. In particular, if you intend to argue that there are five or more employees by including individuals whose titles are merely those of executives, you must be well prepared with evidence to prove their employee status—such as whether they in fact provided labor for wages under the employer’s direction and supervision, and whether they lacked independent management authority or decision‑making power. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to keep personnel and payroll records clearly organized for purposes of calculating the number of regular employees, and to ensure that the positions and roles of executives and employees are distinctly managed in documents such as contracts, job descriptions, and compensation structures. Even if your business employs fewer than five regular employees, other legal obligations—such as notice of dismissal, payment of wages, and severance pay—may still apply upon termination. You should not misunderstand that there is no HR/labor risk simply because there is no unfair dismissal dispute. 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History There is no basis to regard Vice President Park ○‑su and Executive Director Kim ○‑hee as employees of the company in this case, and it was confirmed that, during the one‑month calculation period prior to the date of dismissal, the number of workers who provided labor at the workplace for the purpose of receiving wages was four in total (Lee ○‑su, An ○‑rim, and the applicants). Accordingly, the company falls under the category of a business employing fewer than five regular employees, and this application for remedy falls under Article 60(1)6 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which provides that an application shall be dismissed where “it is evident that the remedy sought cannot be realized under law or in fact.” 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision There is no basis to regard Vice President Park ○‑su and Executive Director Kim ○‑hee as employees of the company in this case, and it was confirmed that, during the one‑month calculation period prior to the date of dismissal, the number of workers who provided labor at the workplace for the purpose of receiving wages was four in total (Lee ○‑su, An ○‑rim, and the applicants). Accordingly, the company falls under the category of a business employing fewer than five regular employees, and this application for remedy falls under Article 60(1)6 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission, which provides that an application shall be dismissed where “it is evident that the remedy sought cannot be realized under law or in fact.” / [See More Related Decisions] - “Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Case Summary – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Dismissed - “Non‑Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Case Summary – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld - “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Case Summary [Tags] Unfair dismissal, dismissal (fewer than five regular employees), 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 Case Summary” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Probationary Termination Right (Misreporting/Misreading)’ – Unfair Dismissal Case Summary,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to dismissal (fewer than five regular employees) can be found in the “Dismissal (Fewer Than Five Regular Employees) – Related Decisions List.” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article