In short: at a workplace covered by Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, an employer needs a justifiable cause to dismiss an employee (Labor Standards Act, Article 23(1)), must generally give 30 days’ advance notice or pay 30 days’ ordinary wages in lieu of notice (Labor Standards Act, Article 26), and must notify the grounds and timing of the dismissal in writing for the dismissal to take effect at all (Labor Standards Act, Article 27). An employee who believes a dismissal was unfair can ask the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, but only within three months of the dismissal (Labor Standards Act, Article 28). Workplaces with 4 or fewer regular employees are outside several of these protections — see the section below on workplace size.

Justifiable cause and when dismissal is off-limits

Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act sets the baseline: an employer shall not, without justifiable cause, dismiss, place on an employer-imposed leave of absence (휴직), suspend, or transfer an employee, reduce his or her wages, or take other punitive measures against him or her. The law groups all of these — dismissal and the other listed actions — together as “unfair dismissal, etc.” when done without justifiable cause.

Article 23(2) adds two specific periods when dismissal is off-limits outright, regardless of cause: while an employee is on leave for medical treatment of an occupational injury or disease, and for 30 days immediately after that leave ends; and while a woman is on leave before or after childbirth as provided under the Act, and for 30 days immediately after that leave ends. The only exceptions are where the employer has paid a lump-sum compensation under Article 84 of the Act, or where the employer is no longer able to continue the business at all.

Where this does and doesn’t apply: workplace size matters

Not every workplace is covered by all of these provisions. Under the Enforcement Decree’s Attached Table 1, which lists which Labor Standards Act provisions apply to workplaces with 4 or fewer regular employees, Article 23(1) — the general justifiable-cause protection — is not on that list, and neither are Article 27 (written notice) or Article 28 (remedy request to the Labor Relations Commission). That means at a workplace with 4 or fewer regular employees, none of those three protections apply. Article 23(2) — the ban on dismissal during medical leave for a work injury or around childbirth — is on the list and does apply at workplaces with 4 or fewer regular employees, and so is Article 26 (advance notice or pay in lieu), covered next.

The practical effect: an employee at a very small workplace cannot use the Labor Standards Act’s remedy procedure before the Labor Relations Commission for an “unfair dismissal” claim, because the provision that defines unfair dismissal (Article 23(1)) and the provision that creates the right to request a remedy (Article 28) do not apply there. What still applies at workplaces with 4 or fewer regular employees, alongside larger workplaces, is the advance-notice requirement and the two specific protected periods under Article 23(2).

Advance notice, or 30 days’ pay instead

Article 26 requires an employer who intends to dismiss an employee — including a dismissal for management reasons — to give at least 30 days’ advance notice. If the employer does not give 30 days’ notice, it must instead pay the employee at least 30 days’ ordinary wages.

Three situations are carved out as exceptions, where neither the 30-day notice nor the pay-in-lieu applies:

  1. The employee’s continuous period of work is less than three months.
  2. Continuation of the business is impossible because of a natural disaster, an incident, or another unavoidable circumstance.
  3. The employee has intentionally caused serious damage to the business or a property loss, in a way that falls under reasons set out by Ministry of Employment and Labor ordinance.

Article 26 also applies at workplaces with 4 or fewer regular employees (Enforcement Decree, Attached Table 1). That means even where an employee has no route to challenge the dismissal itself as unfair, the advance-notice or pay-in-lieu obligation still stands, unless one of the three exceptions above applies.

Written notice: the dismissal isn’t effective without it

Article 27 adds a formal requirement on top of the substantive one. Under Article 27(1), an employer who intends to dismiss an employee must notify the employee in writing of the grounds and timing of the dismissal. Article 27(2) then makes this more than a paperwork formality: the dismissal of an employee becomes effective only upon that written notice. A dismissal that was never put in writing, stating the grounds and timing, has not taken legal effect under this provision.

Article 27(3) gives employers a shortcut: if the employer has already given the Article 26 advance notice of dismissal in writing, stating the grounds and timing of the dismissal, that written advance notice is treated as satisfying the Article 27(1) written-notice requirement as well — the employer does not need to send a second, separate notice.

As noted above, Article 27 is one of the provisions not applied to workplaces with 4 or fewer regular employees under the Enforcement Decree’s Attached Table 1.

Filing for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission

Where Article 28 applies, an employee who has been subjected to an unfair dismissal or one of the other actions covered by Article 23(1) — dismissal, leave of absence (휴직), suspension, transfer, wage reduction, or other punitive measures without justifiable cause — may request a remedy from a Labor Relations Commission (Labor Standards Act, Article 28(1)). The request must be filed within three months from the date of the unfair dismissal, etc. (Labor Standards Act, Article 28(2)). This three-month period runs from the date of the dismissal itself, not from when the employee later decides to act on it.

As covered above, Article 28 is one of the provisions the Enforcement Decree’s Attached Table 1 does not apply to workplaces with 4 or fewer regular employees, so this remedy route is not available there.

Which commission has jurisdiction

A remedy request under Article 28 goes to the regional Labor Relations Commission with jurisdiction over the workplace; jurisdictions are set by Presidential Decree (Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 2(2)). Under the Labor Relations Commission Act, Regional Labor Relations Commissions have jurisdiction over cases that occur within their own jurisdictional area, and a case spanning more than one jurisdictional area is handled by the Regional Labor Relations Commission with jurisdiction over the location of the employer’s main workplace (Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 3(2)). Under Article 31(1) of the Labor Standards Act, the National Labor Relations Commission reviews a Regional Commission’s remedy order or rejection decision on request.

How to file. The Labor Relations Commission runs an online case-filing site (nlrc.go.kr/nlrc/minwon/main.do), where an unfair dismissal remedy application can be filed. A worker whose average monthly wage is below ₩3,000,000 can apply to the commission, which may appoint a lawyer or certified labor attorney to handle the case for them (Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 6-2; its Enforcement Rule, Articles 3 and 4; Ministry of Employment and Labor Notice No. 2021-131, in effect since January 1, 2022). The commission pays the appointed representative’s fee (Enforcement Rule, Article 6), and the appointment is cancelled if the worker hires another lawyer or labor attorney (Enforcement Rule, Article 3(2)1).

How the process runs after filing

Once a remedy request is filed, the Labor Relations Commission investigates without delay and examines the parties involved, giving both sides an opportunity to submit evidence and cross-examine witnesses (Labor Standards Act, Article 29(1) and (3)). It can call witnesses to answer questions, either on request or on its own initiative (Labor Standards Act, Article 29(2)).

After that examination, the Commission issues a decision (Labor Standards Act, Article 30(1)):

Both the judgment and the resulting order or rejection are notified in writing to the employer and the employee (Labor Standards Act, Article 30(2)).

When the Commission orders a remedy for a dismissal specifically, and the employee does not want to be reinstated to their former position, the Commission can instead order the employer to pay the employee an amount at least equal to the wages the employee would have earned by working through the dismissal period (Labor Standards Act, Article 30(3)). And where reinstatement is impossible for reasons such as the employment contract’s expiry or the employee reaching retirement age, the Commission still has to issue an order for remedy or a rejection decision, and can order payment of an equivalent amount instead of reinstatement (Labor Standards Act, Article 30(4)).

If either side disagrees with the outcome

An employer or employee who disagrees with a Regional Labor Relations Commission’s remedy order or rejection decision can apply to the National Labor Relations Commission for a review, within 10 days of being notified of that order or decision (Labor Standards Act, Article 31(1)). If either side disagrees with the National Labor Relations Commission’s review decision, they can file a lawsuit under the Administrative Litigation Act, within 15 days of being served the review decision (Labor Standards Act, Article 31(2)). If no one applies for review or files a lawsuit within those windows, the remedy order, rejection decision, or review decision becomes final (Labor Standards Act, Article 31(3)).

Three common misconceptions

“If my employer pays me 30 days’ wages instead of giving notice, the dismissal is automatically lawful.” Paying in lieu of notice under Article 26 only takes care of the advance-notice requirement. It says nothing about whether the underlying dismissal had justifiable cause under Article 23(1), or whether it was put in writing under Article 27. At a workplace covered by all three provisions, an employer can fully comply with Article 26 and still have carried out an unfair dismissal if there was no justifiable cause or no written notice.

“A verbal explanation from my employer counts as notice.” Under Article 27(2), a dismissal only becomes effective once the employer has notified the employee in writing of the grounds and timing — a conversation or a phone call does not meet this requirement on its own. The one exception is where the Article 26 advance notice itself was already given in writing with the grounds and timing spelled out (Article 27(3)); in that case a second written notice isn’t required, but the notice still has to have been in writing at some point.

“I can file for remedy whenever I’m ready, as long as it’s a reasonable time after the dismissal.” Article 28(2) sets a fixed three-month window from the date of the unfair dismissal, etc. — not from when the employee learns about their rights, decides to act, or finishes negotiating with the employer. If a dismissal seems questionable, the three-month clock is worth tracking from day one.

A note on translations: the official English translation of the Labor Standards Act was published on October 22, 2024, before the Korean amendments effective August 20, 2026 and October 8, 2026, so treat the English text as a guide and check the current Korean text for anything time-sensitive. The official English translation of the Labor Relations Commission Act (January 5, 2021) also predates its current Korean text (effective May 19, 2022).