[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded by dismissal on procedural grounds at the stage of the “legal applicability requirement (4-employee workplace)” issue. Decision Committee: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae243 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-29 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Whether the number of employees “ordinarily employed” was at least five As of April 30, 2026, the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose, it was deemed reasonable to view the number of employees ordinarily employed at the workplace as four, based on the employee roster, and there was no other basis to regard the number as five or more. Accordingly, it was held that the provisions on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. could not be applied. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker claimed that his/her dismissal was an unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. However, the case was dismissed because the number of employees ordinarily employed at the workplace and the question of whether hiring had been finalized became the key issues. The Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the worker’s assertions, which were contrary to those of the employer represented by Labor Law Firm Law&, and focused its determination on (i) whether the Labor Standards Act applied and (ii) whether an employment contract had been formed. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case were: “First, whether the number of employees ordinarily employed at the workplace at the time of dismissal was at least five; and second, even if it were to be regarded as five or more, whether there had been an agreement between the worker and the employer on essential working conditions such as wages so that hiring could be deemed to have been finalized.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Determination The panel in this case found that, as of April 30, 2026, the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose, it was reasonable to regard the number of employees ordinarily employed at the workplace as four, based on the employee roster; that the Labor Standards Act and the unfair dismissal remedy system apply only to businesses or workplaces that ordinarily employ at least five workers; and that there was no objective evidence, even when including daily workers and part-time workers, to support the view that the number of employees ordinarily employed was at least five in light of social norms. Accordingly, it held that the provisions on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. could not be applied, and determined that the worker’s application for remedy did not satisfy the statutory requirements. Furthermore, even assuming that the number of employees ordinarily employed was at least five, the panel found that there had been no final meeting of the minds between the parties on “wages,” the most essential and important term of the employment contract, and that the employment contract had therefore not been finally drafted or confirmed. On this basis, it was also difficult to regard the case as a dismissal following finalized hiring. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) For a worker to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, it is first necessary to verify, using objective materials (such as the employee roster, data on the total number of employees over one month and operating days, etc.), whether the workplace ordinarily employs at least five workers. In addition, at the hiring stage, there should be a clear agreement and a written employment contract regarding key working conditions such as wages, working hours, and job duties. This will make it easier, in the event of a later dismissal dispute, to be protected as a “worker whose hiring has been finalized.” Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to have an accurate understanding of the criteria for calculating the number of employees ordinarily employed (the legal principles under Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, such as: total number of employees over the most recent month ÷ number of operating days; and the rule that if the number of days with fewer than five employees is less than half of the operating days, the workplace is deemed to “ordinarily employ at least five workers”). It is also crucial to maintain and update the employee roster and attendance records on a regular basis. Moreover, if, during the hiring process, essential working conditions such as wages are discussed only orally and the worker is treated merely as “scheduled to join” and a dispute later arises, the very formation of the employment contract may be contested. Therefore, employers should ensure that the finally agreed conditions are clearly set out in a written employment contract. In this type of case, both workers and employers should clearly understand that the unfair dismissal remedy system operates only when the legal applicability requirement of “ordinarily employing at least five workers” and the precondition of “formation of an employment contract” are both satisfied. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether the number of employees ordinarily employed was at least five As of April 30, 2026, the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose, it was deemed reasonable to view the number of employees ordinarily employed at the workplace as four, based on the employee roster, and there was no other basis to regard the number as five or more. Accordingly, it was held that the provisions on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. could not be applied. B. Whether this was a dismissal after hiring had been finalized Even on the assumption that the number of employees ordinarily employed was at least five, when examining whether hiring had been finalized, the panel found that there had been no final meeting of the minds between the parties on “wages,” the most essential and important term of the employment contract, and that the employment contract had therefore not been finally drafted … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Determination A. Whether the number of employees ordinarily employed was at least five As of April 30, 2026, the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose, it was deemed reasonable to view the number of employees ordinarily employed at the workplace as four, based on the employee roster, and there was no other basis to regard the number as five or more. Accordingly, it was held that the provisions on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. could not be applied. B. Whether this was a dismissal after hiring had been finalized Even on the assumption that the number of employees ordinarily employed was at least five, when examining whether hiring had been finalized, the panel found that there had been no final meeting of the minds between the parties on “wages,” the most essential and important term of the employment contract, and that the employment contract had therefore not been finally drafted … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Non-Formation of Conditional Hiring (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: - · Case result: First-instance decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Reassignment (Seafarer → Wind Power Manager)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, legal applicability requirement (4-employee workplace), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Reassignment (Seafarer → Wind Power Manager)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the legal applicability requirement (4-employee workplace) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to the Legal Applicability Requirement (4-Employee Workplace)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article