[Case Information] This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “requirements for application of the law (4‑employee workplace).” Decision date: 2026-06-29 · Decision body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae243 Key issue summary: A. Whether the number of regular employees was at least 5 As of April 30, 2026, the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose, it is reasonable to view the number of regular employees at the workplace as four, based on the employee roster, and there is no other basis to regard the number of regular employees as 5 or more. Therefore, the Commission held that the provisions on relief for unfair dismissal, etc. could not be applied. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the employer’s dismissal was unfair. However, the Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the grounds of the number of regular employees and the absence of a finalized hiring decision. This decision illustrates the unfair dismissal relief system, the jurisdictional requirements of the Labor Relations Commission, and the “workplaces with fewer than 5 employees” issue that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently handles in practice. The Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the number of regular employees at the workplace was at least 5, and further, whether an employment contract had been formed such that a “dismissal” could be said to exist. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case are: “Whether an application for relief from unfair dismissal filed in a workplace with fewer than 5 regular employees falls within the scope of relief by the Labor Relations Commission, and whether the employer’s refusal can be regarded as a ‘dismissal’ where no final agreement has been reached on wages and other working conditions.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that, as of April 30, 2026, the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose, only four persons were listed on the employee roster; that there was no other objective evidence to regard the number of regular employees as 5 or more; and that, in principle, the Labor Standards Act and the unfair dismissal relief system apply only to workplaces with at least 5 regular employees. Accordingly, it held that the prerequisite for accepting an application for relief from unfair dismissal—namely, the requirement of “at least 5 regular employees”—had not been satisfied. In addition, even assuming that the number of regular employees was 5 or more, the parties had not reached a final agreement on “wages,” the most essential and important element of an employment contract. As a result, the employment contract had not been finally drafted and delivered, and there had been no sufficiently definitive expression of intent to hire that could be regarded as a hiring decision (such as hiring confirmation or probation). On this basis, the Commission found that no employment contract had been formed at all. Therefore, in this case, there was no legally valid employment relationship, the employer’s conduct could not be evaluated as a “dismissal,” and consequently, there was no dismissal that could be the subject of an application for relief from unfair dismissal. The application was thus dismissed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For a worker to apply to the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal, it is necessary first to check whether the number of regular employees at the workplace is at least 5, and second to confirm whether an employment contract has actually been formed through agreement between the worker and the employer on key terms such as wages and working hours. Even if there were oral statements during the hiring process to the effect of “let’s have you work here,” if there was no concrete agreement on wage level and method of payment and no written employment contract was prepared, the existence of a “dismissal” itself may be denied at the Labor Relations Commission stage. Therefore, as far as possible, conditions should be clarified and recorded in writing from the hiring stage. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, even where the number of regular employees is fewer than 5, it is advisable to systematically maintain records of the process of concluding and terminating employment contracts, in view of potential future increases in headcount or disputes. In particular, it is important at the hiring stage to distinguish clearly whether agreement has been finalized on wages and other working conditions or whether matters are still under negotiation, and when deferring or cancelling a hiring decision, to specify the timing and reasons in writing, such as by email or text message. In addition, when calculating the number of regular employees, HR and labor personnel must accurately distinguish between those who are included under the Labor Standards Act—such as fixed-term and part-time workers and foreign workers—and those who are excluded, such as dispatched or subcontracted workers, and must continuously manage records of changes in headcount. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which an application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed on the ground that the workplace had fewer than 5 regular employees and therefore did not fall within the scope of unfair dismissal relief. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Whether the number of regular employees was at least 5 As of April 30, 2026, the date on which the legal grounds for the dismissal arose, it is reasonable to view the number of regular employees at the workplace as four, based on the employee roster, and there is no other basis to regard the number of regular employees as 5 or more. Therefore, the Commission finds that the provisions on relief from unfair dismissal, etc. cannot be applied. B. Whether the dismissal occurred after hiring had been finalized Even on the assumption that the number of regular employees was at least 5, examination of whether hiring had been finalized shows that the parties did not reach final agreement on “wages,” the most essential and important matter in an employment contract. It is confirmed that the employment contract was therefore not finalized in writing. In these circumstances, it is difficult to regard hiring as having been finalized or an employment contract as having been validly formed. Accordingly, the Commission finds that no dismissal exists. [See More Related Decisions] - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: - · Case No.: Original decision upheld - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)” - “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, requirements for application of the law (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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Unfair Dismissal Related to Reassignment (Seafarer → Wind Power Manager),” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to requirements for application of the law (4‑employee workplace) can be found at “List of Decisions Related to Requirements for Application of the Law (4‑Employee Workplace).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article