[Case Information] This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “legal application limitation (workplaces with fewer than five employees).” Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2039 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-28 · Case result: Dismissed Key Issue Summary: ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy on the ground that the employer’s dismissal was an unfair dismissal. However, the case was dismissed because the key issue was whether the number of employees regularly employed at the workplace was fewer than five. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the number of persons enrolled in employment insurance and the legal status of the team leaders and team members, and first determined whether the workplace fell within the scope of the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, if the team leaders and the personnel under their supervision are included, the number of regularly employed workers reaches five or more, and whether these individuals can be regarded as employees belonging to the employer, thereby making the workplace subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that the team leaders appeared to bear independent responsibility for labor costs and personnel management; that the employee himself did not specifically know the contractual structure between the employer and the team leaders and failed to submit any evidence to prove that the personnel under the team leaders were employees belonging to the employer; and that, during the period for calculating the number of regularly employed workers, only three persons including the employee were enrolled in employment insurance. In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the team leaders and the personnel under them as employees belonging to the employer, and ultimately determined that this workplace fell under a workplace with fewer than five regularly employed workers. The dismissal in this case was therefore deemed to have occurred at a workplace to which the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act does not apply, even before examining whether the dismissal was justified. On that basis, the application for remedy was dismissed for failure to satisfy the requirements for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For an employee to contest an unfair dismissal by filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, it is first necessary to accurately identify whether the workplace regularly employs five or more workers and who the actual employer (business owner) is. In particular, where the employee works together with team leaders or personnel belonging to subcontractors or consignment companies, it is important to secure in advance objective materials that support employee status and employer status, such as the status of employment insurance enrollment, the entity that pays wages, and the entity that exercises direction and supervision. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even if the number of regularly employed workers is fewer than five, it is necessary to clearly document the actual personnel management structure and contractual relationships, and to maintain consistency in employment insurance enrollment, wage payment, and the chain of command and supervision. When collective or individual dismissal disputes arise, who is to be regarded as the employer and who is to be regarded as belonging to the employer as an employee becomes a key issue. Therefore, where a structure involving subcontracting, consignment, or team leaders is used, the contents of the contracts and operational practices should be reviewed to ensure that no de facto relationship of subordination as to work arises. This type of decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the determination of the scope of application of the Labor Standards Act and the status of employer and employee precedes the examination of the “justifiability of the dismissal.” Accordingly, both employees and employers are advised to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review in advance the structure of the workplace and potential HR and labor-management risks. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History ... in light of the fact that the team leaders appear to bear responsibility for labor costs and personnel management, it is determined that the team leaders and the workers under them are not employees belonging to the employer; ② the employee also appears not to know specifically about the contractual relationship between the employer and the team leaders, and no evidentiary materials have been submitted that would prove that the team leaders or the workers under them are employees belonging to the employer; and ③ during the period for calculating the number of regularly employed workers, only three persons including the employee were enrolled in employment insurance. Taken together, the workplace falls under a workplace with fewer than five regularly employed workers, and therefore the provisions of the Labor Standards Act on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal do not apply. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision ... in light of the fact that the team leaders appear to bear responsibility for labor costs and personnel management, it is determined that the team leaders and the workers under them are not employees belonging to the employer; ② the employee also appears not to know specifically about the contractual relationship between the employer and the team leaders, and no evidentiary materials have been submitted that would prove that the team leaders or the workers under them are employees belonging to the employer; and ③ during the period for calculating the number of regularly employed workers, only three persons including the employee were enrolled in employment insurance. Taken together, the workplace falls under a workplace with fewer than five regularly employed workers, and therefore the provisions of the Labor Standards Act on applications for remedy for unfair dismissal do not apply. / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, legal application limitation (workplaces with fewer than five 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&. ※ The previous article, ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Employer’s Domination and Interference (Encouraging Union Membership by Head of Transportation Division)”’, can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to legal application limitation (workplaces with fewer than five employees) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Legal Application Limitation (Workplaces with Fewer Than Five Employees).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article