[Case Information] This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “number of regular employees (workplaces with fewer than 5 employees).” Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1415 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-30 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground that his or her dismissal constituted unfair dismissal. However, the case was dismissed because the key issue was whether the number of regular employees at the workplace was fewer than five. Based on the payroll ledger and other materials submitted by the company, the Commission calculated the number of regular employees and concluded that the workplace did not fall within the scope of workplaces to which the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act applies. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in light of the actual number of workers employed and the number of operating days during the period for calculating the number of regular employees, the workplace qualifies as a “workplace with at least five regular employees” under the Labor Standards Act, in which an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is permissible, or whether it should be regarded as a workplace with fewer than five employees and thus outside the scope of the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal remedy procedure. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case applied the method for calculating the number of regular employees set out in Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 7-2 of its Enforcement Decree. It found that, based on the payroll ledger and other documents submitted by the employer, the number of regular employees was only three; that the total number of worker-days during the calculation period was 66 and the number of operating days was 22; and that on all operating days the number of workers was fewer than five, with the number of days falling short of the statutory threshold being at least one-half of the operating days. Taking all of these factors together, the panel concluded that the number of regular employees was fewer than five. Because the dismissal in this case occurred at a workplace with fewer than five regular employees, the provisions of the Labor Standards Act governing applications for remedy for unfair dismissal were held not to apply. Accordingly, the application for remedy was dismissed without proceeding to a substantive determination on whether the dismissal was unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) For a worker to apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is first necessary to confirm, based on objective data, whether the workplace has “at least five regular employees.” The number of regular employees must be provable through materials such as payroll ledgers, attendance records, employment contracts, and actual working days. In particular, daily, part-time, and fixed-term workers are included in the count, whereas dispatched and subcontracted workers are excluded, and this distinction should be kept in mind. In calculating the number of regular employees, what matters is not the headcount at a specific point in time, but both “total worker-days ÷ number of operating days” for the one-month period prior to the date on which the legal grounds for application arose, and the “proportion of days on which fewer than five employees worked.” Therefore, you should not conclude that your workplace has at least five employees based solely on short-term fluctuations in staffing. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even if the number of regular employees is fewer than five, it is important for dispute prevention to ensure the fairness of the dismissal itself and the procedural propriety of the process. Accordingly, grounds for dismissal, notification procedures, and written records should, at a minimum, be properly prepared and maintained. In addition, if the actual number of workers employed and the number of operating days are clearly managed through payroll ledgers, employment contracts, and attendance records, disputes over the number of regular employees can be reduced at the stage of review by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. In particular, where multiple small workplaces are operated, or in industries with many seasonal or short-term workers, it is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& on how to aggregate the number of workers by workplace and whether there is room to view multiple workplaces as a single business. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History ... Given that, based on these materials alone, it is difficult to specifically confirm, for the period used to calculate the number of regular employees, the number of workers actually working at the company, the number of working days, the continuity of the employment relationships, and the existence of subordination to the employer; and ③ that, if the number of regular employees is calculated according to the payroll ledger and other documents submitted by the employer, the total number of worker-days during the calculation period is 66 and the number of operating days is 22, resulting in three regular employees, and the number of days on which fewer than five employees worked is 22, meaning that the number of days falling short of the statutory threshold is at least one-half of the operating days; taking all of these factors together, the number of regular employees is fewer than five, and therefore the provisions of the Labor Standards Act concerning applications for remedy are not applicable. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings ... Given that, based on these materials alone, it is difficult to specifically confirm, for the period used to calculate the number of regular employees, the number of workers actually working at the company, the number of working days, the continuity of the employment relationships, and the existence of subordination to the employer; and ③ that, if the number of regular employees is calculated according to the payroll ledger and other documents submitted by the employer, the total number of worker-days during the calculation period is 66 and the number of operating days is 22, resulting in three regular employees, and the number of days on which fewer than five employees worked is 22, meaning that the number of days falling short of the statutory threshold is at least one-half of the operating days; taking all of these factors together, the number of regular employees is fewer than five, and therefore the provisions of the Labor Standards Act concerning applications for remedy are not applicable. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld [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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Resignation/Termination by Agreement (Acceptance of Resignation Recommendation)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions relating to the number of regular employees (workplaces with fewer than 5 employees) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Relating to Number of Regular Employees (Workplaces with Fewer than 5 Employees).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article