[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded by dismissal on procedural grounds on the issue of “limitation on legal application (fewer than 5 employees).” Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae651 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-28 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: As the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose is confirmed as 27 May 2026, the workplace does not appear to be one that regularly employs five or more employees under Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, under Attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 23(1) and 28 of the Labor Standards Act are deemed inapplicable to the employer. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal in response to the employer’s dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the case focusing on the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace at the time the grounds for dismissal arose and the scope of application of the Labor Standards Act, and rendered a decision dismissing the application. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace at the time of dismissal appears to be fewer than five, the legal preconditions are satisfied for the employee to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose was 27 May 2026; that even when viewed under Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, the workplace does not appear to be one that regularly employs five or more employees; and that, under Attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act (prohibition of dismissal without just cause) and Article 28 (application for remedy for unfair dismissal) do not apply to such workplaces. Accordingly, regardless of whether this dismissal was substantively justified, the dismissal in this case does not fall within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act from the outset. Therefore, the Labor Relations Commission has no authority to render a decision on the merits, and the application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be dismissed for failure to satisfy the requisite conditions. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Before an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, they must first confirm whether their workplace regularly employs at least five employees. If the number of regularly employed workers is fewer than five, it is difficult to use the unfair dismissal remedy procedures based on Articles 23 and 28 of the Labor Standards Act. In such cases, other legal avenues should be considered, such as claims for unpaid wages, violations of dismissal notice requirements, or civil claims for damages. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is necessary to clearly understand that the provisions of the Labor Standards Act that apply differ depending on the number of regularly employed workers. However, even in workplaces with fewer than five regularly employed workers, certain provisions—such as the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal (Article 27)—may still apply. Moreover, personnel measures equivalent to unfair dismissal may lead to civil disputes or criminal liability (e.g., for unpaid wages). It is therefore advisable to ensure the objectivity of the grounds for dismissal and the fairness of the procedures. In this type of case, both employees and employers should formulate their response strategies based on an accurate understanding of the scope of application of the Labor Standards Act according to the number of regularly employed workers and the preconditions for using the remedy system of the Labor Relations Commission. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History As the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose is confirmed as 27 May 2026, the workplace does not appear to be one that regularly employs five or more employees under Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, under Attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 23(1) and 28 of the Labor Standards Act are deemed inapplicable to the employer. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning As the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose is confirmed as 27 May 2026, the workplace does not appear to be one that regularly employs five or more employees under Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, under Attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 23(1) and 28 of the Labor Standards Act are deemed inapplicable to the employer. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Contract Expiry Practice)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to ‘Disciplinary Measure Level (Unauthorized Removal of Confidential Information)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, limitation on legal application (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 Related to ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Contract Expiry Practice)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to limitation on legal application (fewer than 5 employees) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Limitation on Legal Application (Fewer than 5 Employees).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article