[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “establishments subject to legal application (Saetbyeol Fisheries · Hanmaeum Aquaculture).” Decision date: 2026-07-02 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae56 Summary of key issues: A. Whether the application for remedy is admissible (whether the number of regularly employed workers is at least five) The two companies operated by the employer, Saetbyeol Fisheries and Hanmaeum Aquaculture, must be regarded as a single establishment. Although the number of regularly employed workers at these establishments is fewer than five, they fall under “cases deemed to be establishments to which the Act applies” under Article 7-2(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, and therefore are subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case concerned whether the two companies “Saetbyeol Fisheries” and “Hanmaeum Aquaculture,” which were in substance operated together by the employer, could be regarded as a single establishment, and whether the statutory dismissal regulations under the Labor Standards Act would apply even if the total number of employees was fewer than five. After dismissal, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Central Labor Relations Commission changed the first-instance order of reinstatement to the original position to an order for payment of monetary compensation, while still recognizing the unfairness of the dismissal. In this process, it can be seen that Labor Law Firm Law& acted as the representative in the case. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: “Whether a dismissal carried out at multiple establishments with fewer than five employees, which are in substance operated as a single establishment, can be recognized as having occurred at an establishment to which the Act applies under Article 7-2(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, and whether an oral dismissal, in which the reasons and timing of dismissal were not notified in writing, constitutes an unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case recognized unfair dismissal on the following grounds: Saetbyeol Fisheries and Hanmaeum Aquaculture, operated by the employer, must be regarded as a single establishment in light of the substance of personnel and labor management and the unity of management; although the number of regularly employed workers at the two establishments is fewer than five, they fall under “cases deemed to be establishments to which the Act applies” as prescribed in Article 7-2(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act; the employment contract was terminated against the employee’s will, so there was a dismissal based on the unilateral intent of the employer; and the employer’s failure to notify the reasons and timing of dismissal in writing constituted a serious violation of the dismissal procedures under the Labor Standards Act. In addition, taking into account that, under Article 64(2) of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, the employee in the employer’s reexamination case did not wish to be reinstated to the original position and chose monetary compensation, and that the amount of KRW 9,537,950 was calculated based on the wages the employee would have received had he or she worked normally during the dismissal period, the Commission held that it was appropriate to change the first-instance order of reinstatement to an order for payment of monetary compensation. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should bear in mind that even if the company has fewer than five employees, they may file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission if multiple establishments are in substance operated as a single establishment and the requirements for an “establishment to which the Act applies” under the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act are met. Furthermore, if the employer terminates the employment relationship by orally telling the employee to quit or effectively preventing the employee from reporting to work, without notifying the reasons and timing of dismissal in writing, the employee may challenge the dismissal as unfair on the grounds of the existence of a dismissal and procedural violations. It is therefore important to secure as detailed evidence as possible of the circumstances at the time, such as text messages, recordings, and witness statements. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even if business is conducted under multiple trade names and business registrations, if personnel and labor management and business operations are in substance integrated, the number of regularly employed workers may be aggregated for purposes of the Labor Standards Act and the business may be evaluated as an “establishment with five or more employees.” When carrying out a dismissal, whether it is a redundancy dismissal or an ordinary dismissal, the employer must deliver a written notice clearly stating the reasons and timing of dismissal. Failure to do so may result in a finding of unfair dismissal solely on the basis of procedural violations, regardless of the substantive justifiability of the dismissal reasons. Employers should therefore prepare and maintain personnel regulations and dismissal notice templates in advance. Finally, at the reexamination stage before the Labor Relations Commission, if the employee does not wish to be reinstated to the original position, the order may be changed to an order for monetary compensation. Accordingly, when seeking to avoid prolonged disputes, employers should strategically respond after comprehensively reviewing an appropriate level of monetary compensation and the risks of enforcement surcharges depending on whether they comply with the remedy order. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History The two companies operated by the employer, Saetbyeol Fisheries and Hanmaeum Aquaculture, must be regarded as a single establishment, and although the number of regularly employed workers at the establishment is fewer than five, they fall under “cases deemed to be establishments to which the Act applies” under Article 7-2(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act. The employer dismissed the employee on 24 September 2025 without just cause and failed to notify the reasons and timing of dismissal in writing, so the dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal. This is a case in which the first-instance remedy order of reinstatement to the original position was changed to an order for payment of monetary compensation. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Whether the application for remedy is admissible (whether the number of regularly employed workers is at least five) The two companies operated by the employer, Saetbyeol Fisheries and Hanmaeum Aquaculture, must be regarded as a single establishment. Although the number of regularly employed workers at these establishments is fewer than five, they fall under “cases deemed to be establishments to which the Act applies” under Article 7-2(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, and therefore are subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. B. If the application for remedy is admissible, whether a dismissal exists The employee was dismissed against his or her intention to continue working, and therefore the employer’s dismissal of the employee does exist. C. If a dismissal exists, whether the dismissal is justified (in terms of reasons and procedures) Despite the existence of a dismissal, it is established that the employer did not notify the employee of the reasons and timing of dismissal in writing. D. Whether an application for an order of monetary compensation is permissible Pursuant to Article 64(2) of the Labor Relations Commission Rules, in a case of an employer’s application for reexamination of an unfair dismissal remedy decision, if the employee does not wish to be reinstated to the original position, the employee may apply for an order of monetary compensation. Such an application is allowed, and it is deemed appropriate to calculate the amount at KRW 9,537,950 (truncated below the won unit) and order payment of that amount. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Interest in Remedy · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Dismissal of Petition (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case No.: Dismissal of Petition - “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, Establishments subject to legal application (Saetbyeol Fisheries · Hanmaeum Aquaculture), 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 Case on ‘Defects in Disciplinary Procedures (Security Guard’s Attire · Negligent Work Performance)’,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to “Establishments subject to legal application (Saetbyeol Fisheries · Hanmaeum Aquaculture)” in the “Establishments subject to legal application (Saetbyeol Fisheries · Hanmaeum Aquaculture) Related Decisions List.” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article