[Case Information] This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed at the stage of determining whether the workplace fell under the category of “fewer than 5 regular employees.” Date of Decision: 2026-06-30 · Labor Relations Commission: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해1415 Key Issue Summary: (i) The employee asserted that the employer was operating multiple corporations, but failed to present objective materials such as the names of the business places and the names of the employees belonging to each, which could verify this assertion; (ii) although the employee submitted some materials such as photographs, those materials alone made it difficult to specifically confirm, for the period used to calculate the number of regular employees, the number of employees actually working at the company, the number of days worked, the continuity of the employment relationships, and the existence of subordination; (iii) the employer… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the dismissal imposed on him/her constituted an unfair dismissal. The Commission focused its review on whether the workplace met the threshold of at least five regular employees, which is required for the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act to apply. The employee argued that the employer was operating multiple corporations and that the actual number of regular employees was at least five. However, based on the materials submitted, the Commission determined that the number of regular employees was fewer than five and therefore concluded that the case did not fall within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy provisions. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Whether, in a workplace that appears to have fewer than five regular employees, the requirements for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal are satisfied when the employee claims that the headcount should be calculated by including employees of the employer’s other corporations or business places, thereby reaching five or more.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning With respect to the employee’s assertion that the employer operated multiple corporations, the panel held that no objective materials had been submitted to support this claim, such as the names of the business places or lists of employees belonging to each. It further noted that, although the employee submitted some materials such as photographs, those materials alone made it difficult to specifically confirm, for the period used to calculate the number of regular employees, the number of persons who actually worked, the number of days worked, the continuity of the employment relationships, and the existence of subordination. On the other hand, based on the wage ledger submitted by the employer, when the number of regular employees was calculated in accordance with Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, the total cumulative number of employees (연인원) during the calculation period was 66, and the number of operating days was 22, resulting in an average of only three employees. Furthermore, even on a day-by-day basis, the number of employees was fewer than five on all 22 operating days, meaning that the number of days falling short of the statutory threshold was at least one-half of the total operating days. Taking all of these factors into account, the panel concluded that the number of regular employees should be deemed fewer than five. Accordingly, it held that the provisions of Articles 11 and 28 of the Labor Standards Act concerning applications for remedy for unfair dismissal did not apply to this workplace. As a result, the employee could not utilize the unfair dismissal remedy procedures before the Labor Relations Commission with respect to this dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should be keenly aware that, in order to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is critically important that, as of the time of dismissal, the number of regular employees at the “business or workplace” to which they belong is at least five. Mere assertions are insufficient to dispute the number of regular employees. Employees must systematically secure and submit supporting materials such as wage ledgers, employment contracts, records of enrollment in the four major social insurances, and documents that can show the actual number of people who worked together and their working patterns. In addition, if the employer operates multiple corporations or stores but, in substance, integrates personnel, labor management, and accounting so that they are run as a single business, then the question of whether there are at least five employees should be contested based on the total headcount of that “single business.” It is therefore necessary to prepare in advance materials that can prove unified management and integrated personnel administration. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, the key to preventing disputes is to accurately maintain basic records related to the calculation of the number of regular employees, such as wage ledgers, attendance records, and reports filed for the four major social insurances. In industries that rely heavily on seasonal or short-term labor, it is particularly important to calculate, in advance and in accordance with Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, the total cumulative number of employees and the number of operating days during the one-month period preceding the occurrence of the event giving rise to the application of the Act, and to clearly determine whether the threshold of five or more employees is met. Where multiple corporations or branches are operated, employers should examine whether personnel, accounting, and organizational operations at each business place are in fact independent, or whether there is a substantive risk that they may be evaluated as a single business. Even if the number of regular employees is fewer than five, it is advisable, in order to prevent unfair dismissal disputes themselves, to objectively organize the grounds and procedures for dismissal and, where possible, to avoid drastic measures such as “redundancy dismissals,” giving priority instead to alternative personnel measures. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that the number of regular employees was fewer than five, and thus the case did not fall within the scope of applications for remedy for unfair dismissal. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (i) The employee asserted that the employer was operating multiple corporations, but failed to present objective materials that could verify this, such as the names of the business places and the names of the employees belonging to each; (ii) although the employee submitted some materials such as photographs, those materials alone made it difficult to specifically confirm, for the period used to calculate the number of regular employees, the number of employees actually working at the company, the number of days worked, the continuity of the employment relationships, and the existence of subordination; (iii) based on the wage ledger and other materials submitted by the employer, when the number of regular employees was calculated, the total cumulative number of employees during the calculation period was 66, and the number of operating days was 22, resulting in three regular employees, and the number of days on which fewer than five employees worked was 22, meaning that the number of days falling short of the statutory threshold was at least one-half of the operating days. In light of all of the above, the Commission concluded that the number of regular employees was fewer than five and that the provisions of the Labor Standards Act concerning applications for remedy for unfair dismissal did not apply. [See More Related Decisions] - Unfair dismissal decision concerning “Remedial Interest and Refusal to Reemploy (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)” - Unfair dismissal decision concerning “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)” - Unfair dismissal decision concerning “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligence in Management and Supervision)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, number of regular employees (workplaces with fewer than 5 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair dismissal decision concerning ‘Resignation and Termination by Agreement (Acceptance of Recommendation to Resign)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to the number of regular employees (workplaces with fewer than 5 employees) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to the Number of Regular Employees (Workplaces with Fewer than 5 Employees).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article