[Case Information] This case is a decision that was dismissed on procedural grounds at the stage of the “limitation on application of the law (businesses with fewer than 5 employees)” issue. Decision date: 2026-07-28 · Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae2039 Key issue summary: ① Where the employer allocates cleaning work, obtained from customers, to team leaders, and the team leaders independently perform the allocated cleaning work using their own equipment, without separately reporting the results of their work to the employer, and the cleaning fees received from customers are settled between the employer and the team leaders according to pre-agreed criteria, and the team leaders appear to bear the obligation to pay wages to the workers under them, the team leaders... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker engaged in cleaning work filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The Commission, however, dismissed the application on the ground that the number of regular employees at the workplace was fewer than five. In a structure where cleaning work was allocated to team leaders, and the team leaders carried out the work using their own equipment and personnel, the key issue was whether the team leaders and the workers under them qualified as “employees.” This is a type of case that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice. The Commission focused on whether the team leaders and their subordinates were employees belonging to the employer, and whether they could be included in the count of regular employees. Based on that, it first examined whether the workplace fell within the scope of the unfair dismissal relief system under the Labor Standards Act. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether “team leaders who perform cleaning work under a contract and the workers under them can be regarded as the employer’s regular employees, and therefore whether the workplace qualifies as a ‘business with at least five regular employees’ under Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act such that an application for relief from unfair dismissal is permissible.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The decision panel in this case noted that the employer allocated cleaning work, obtained from customers, to each team leader; that the team leaders independently performed the work using their own equipment; that they did not separately report the results of their work to the employer; that the fees received from customers were settled between the employer and the team leaders according to agreed criteria; that the team leaders bore responsibility for paying wages to the workers under them; that during the period for calculating the number of regular employees, only three persons, including the worker, were enrolled in employment insurance; and that no evidence had been submitted to prove that the team leaders and their subordinates were employees belonging to the employer. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the team leaders and the workers under them should be regarded not as employees subordinate to the employer under the Labor Standards Act, but as independent business operators in a contract-for-work (dokeup) relationship. Excluding them, the number of regular employees at the workplace fell below five. The dismissal in this case, before considering its substantive justification, was taken at a workplace that did not meet the requirement of being a “business with at least five regular employees” to which Articles 11, 23, and 28 of the Labor Standards Act apply. Accordingly, the Commission found that the measure could not be the subject of an unfair dismissal relief application and dismissed the case. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary to confirm not only whether the dismissal was unfair, but also whether the workplace is a business with at least five regular employees under the Labor Standards Act, and which of the people working together can be recognized as “employees” in the legal sense. In particular, in structures where contract/outsourcing forms are mixed—such as cleaning, delivery, private academies, and freelancers—it is important to secure, in advance, materials related to employee status, such as whether one is enrolled in employment insurance and the four major social insurances, who is the wage-paying entity, who owns the equipment, and how command and supervision are structured. When preparing an application for relief to the Labor Relations Commission, mere statements such as “we worked together” are usually insufficient to have the number of regular employees recognized. You must systematically submit objective evidence showing that you actually worked under the employer’s direction and control (attendance records, group chat instructions, pay slips, payment records, etc.). Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, even where the number of regular employees is fewer than five, caution is required when dismissing workers. However, it must be clearly recognized that the applicability of the unfair dismissal relief system under the Labor Standards Act depends on the calculation of the number of regular employees and the determination of employee status. When utilizing contract, outsourcing, or freelancer structures, it is not sufficient merely to state in the contract that the relationship is one of contract/outsourcing. In actual operation, it is important to consistently maintain factors that support characterization as an independent business operator (ownership of equipment and tools, possibility of hiring third parties, autonomy in how work is performed, bearing one’s own performance results and profits/losses, etc.). In addition, with respect to calculating the number of regular employees, employers should regularly check the status of employment insurance enrollment, the composition of personnel by workplace, and whether there is a single workplace. Where multiple teams/lines are operated, they should examine whether human and material facilities, accounting, and command structures are in fact separated and independent, and clearly organize the scope of legal application. 2. Decision Matters A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed on the ground that the number of regular employees was fewer than five, so the provisions of the Labor Standards Act on unfair dismissal relief did not apply. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning ① When the employer allocated cleaning work obtained from customers to team leaders, the team leaders independently performed the cleaning work allocated to them using their own equipment, and did not appear to separately report the results of their work to the employer. The cleaning fees received from customers were settled between the employer and the team leaders according to pre-agreed criteria, and the team leaders appeared to bear the obligation to pay wages to the workers under them. In view of this, the team leaders and the workers under them were deemed not to be employees belonging to the employer. ② The worker also appeared not to know the specific contractual relationship between the employer and the team leaders, and no evidentiary materials were submitted to prove that the team leaders or the workers under them were employees belonging to the employer. ③ During the period for calculating the number of regular employees, only three persons, including the worker, were enrolled in employment insurance. Taking all of this into account, the workplace was found to be a business with fewer than five regular employees, and therefore the provisions of the Labor Standards Act on applications for relief from unfair dismissal did not apply. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Relief Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Workers)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, limitation on application of law (businesses 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interference with Union Activities (Encouraging Union Membership by Head of Transportation Division)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to limitation on application of law (businesses with fewer than 5 employees) can be found under “List of Decisions on Limitation on Application of Law (Businesses with Fewer than 5 Employees).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article