Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 2023두37391 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/14 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 2023두37391

Action to Set Aside a Retrial Decision on Unfair Dismissal Remedy [Case concerning whether a foreign company that established a domestic corporation in Korea to conduct business qualifies as a 'business or workplace regularly employing 5 or more workers' under the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법)]부당해고구제재심판정취소[외국기업이 국내에서 법인을 설립하여 사업을 영위한 사안에서 근로기준법상 ‘상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장’에 해당하는지가 문제 된 사건]

Decided2024. 10. 25. Court대법원Case reversed and remanded (employer's position on non-application of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) was upheld in principle, but the case was sent back to the High Court for further proceedings)
한국어·Print
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

This case established the principle that when determining whether a Korean subsidiary of a foreign company regularly employs 5 or more workers, only the number of employees in Korea should be counted—employees at the overseas headquarters should not be added to the total. Although combining the German headquarters and Korean subsidiary staff would exceed 5 employees, since the subsidiary had only 2 employees in Korea, the Supreme Court (대법원) ruled that the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) did not fully apply. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case to the High Court.

Key takeaways
  • CaseAn employee working at the Korean subsidiary of a German parent company was dismissed and filed for unfair dismissal (부당해고) relief, while the company argued the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) did not apply because it employed only 2 workers in Korea.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court (대법원) held that whether the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) applies to a foreign company's Korean subsidiary must be judged based solely on the number of employees at the domestic workplace, not the overseas headquarters, and reversed and remanded the lower court's decision.
  • LessonA Korean subsidiary of a foreign company may be exempt from full application of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) if it regularly employs fewer than 5 workers domestically, regardless of how many employees the overseas headquarters has.
Issues
  • In international employment relationships involving a foreign company, what is the standard for determining 'regularly employing 5 or more workers' under Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법)?
  • Whether the number of domestic and overseas employees should be aggregated for this determination
Key reasoning

Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), which defines 'business or workplace,' refers specifically to workplaces located within the Republic of Korea. Therefore, in international employment relationships involving foreign companies, whether the Act fully applies must be determined solely based on the number of workers employed domestically in Korea. Workers employed abroad are governed by the labor laws of their respective foreign jurisdictions, and thus their numbers cannot be aggregated with domestic employee counts. This means overseas headquarters staff should not be combined with the Korean subsidiary's employee count when assessing the 5-or-more-employee threshold.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) provides that the Labor Standards Act applies to all businesses or workplaces that ordinarily employ five or more workers (Paragraph 1), and that some provisions of this Act may be applied, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, to businesses or workplaces that ordinarily employ four or fewer workers (Paragraph 2), thereby differentiating the scope of application of the Labor Standards Act based on the standard of “the number of workers ordinarily employed.” In an international employment relationship where a foreign company establishes a corporation, business office, or the like in Korea to conduct business activities and employ workers, whether it constitutes a “business or workplace that ordinarily employs five or more workers,” to which the Labor Standards Act applies in full, should in principle be determined based on the “number of workers employed in Korea.” The reasons are as follows.

① The business or workplace referred to in Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act is the unit to which the Labor Standards Act applies, and serves as the basic unit for regulating working conditions, for the exchange of opinions and consultation among workers, and for determining the legitimacy of dismissals, including dismissals for managerial reasons. Accordingly, a single business or workplace may be constituted only where it can be regarded as a substantially identical economic and social unit of activity to which the various regulations governing the employment relationship can be uniformly applied. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the business or workplace under Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act as referring to a business or workplace located within the Republic of Korea.

② With respect to workers employed by a foreign company abroad, absent special circumstances, only the labor-related statutes of the foreign country apply. Therefore, in determining whether a business or workplace constitutes one that “ordinarily employs five or more workers” under Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act, it is not permissible to include, in the aggregate, the number of workers employed abroad to whom the Labor Standards Act of the Republic of Korea does not apply.

Full text (English, AI translation) 5,442 chars

[Plaintiffs, Appellants] ○○○ Limited Company and 1 other (Attorneys-at-law of Daelyuk Aju Law Firm (Limited Liability Partnership), Kim Seong-hun and 2 others, representing the Plaintiffs)
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Intervenor for the Defendant] Intervenor for the Defendant (Attorney-at-law Lee Jae-min, representing the Intervenor)
[Original Judgment] Seoul High Court Decision 2022Nu32254, decided February 3, 2023

[Order]

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Relevant Legal Principles

Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) provides that the Labor Standards Act shall apply to all businesses or workplaces that ordinarily employ five or more workers (Paragraph 1), and that with respect to businesses or workplaces that ordinarily employ four or fewer workers, some provisions of this Act may be applied as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Paragraph 2), thereby differentiating the scope of application of the Labor Standards Act based on the "number of workers ordinarily employed." In an international employment relationship in which a foreign enterprise establishes a corporation, business office, or the like in Korea and engages in business activities while employing workers, whether the enterprise constitutes a "business or workplace ordinarily employing five or more workers," to which the Labor Standards Act applies in full, must in principle be determined based on the "number of workers ordinarily employed in Korea." The reasons are as follows.

A. The "business or workplace" under Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act is the unit to which the Labor Standards Act applies, and serves as the basic unit for regulating working conditions, for the exchange of opinions and consultation among workers, and for determining the legitimacy of dismissals, including dismissals for managerial reasons. Accordingly, a single business or workplace can be constituted only where it can be regarded as a substantially identical economic and social unit of activity to which the various regulations governing employment relationships can be uniformly applied. It is therefore reasonable to construe the "business or workplace" under Article 11 of the Labor Standards Act as referring to a business or workplace located within the Republic of Korea.

B. Since, absent special circumstances, only the labor-related laws and regulations of the foreign country apply to workers employed abroad by a foreign enterprise, the number of workers employed abroad—to whom the Labor Standards Act of the Republic of Korea does not apply—cannot be added together with the number of workers employed in Korea in determining whether the enterprise falls under "a business or workplace ordinarily employing five or more workers" under Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act.

2. Determination

According to the reasoning of the original judgment and the record, it can be seen that Plaintiff △△△ (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff German Corporation"), a company headquartered in Germany that manufactures and sells flooring and road-surfacing products, established Plaintiff ○○○ Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff Korean Corporation") in order to conduct business within the Republic of Korea, and that around the time of the dismissal at issue in this case, the Intervenor for the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "Intervenor") and two other persons were ordinarily employed at Plaintiff Korean Corporation.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles set forth above, since the number of workers ordinarily employed in Korea by Plaintiff Korean Corporation, even including the Intervenor, is only two, the Plaintiffs cannot be considered to fall under "a business or workplace ordinarily employing five or more workers" as provided in Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act, even if the number of workers ordinarily employed by Plaintiff German Corporation abroad were added, resulting in a total of five or more workers.

Nevertheless, the court below, relying solely on the circumstances stated in its judgment, found that the Plaintiffs constituted a single business or workplace, and then determined that the Plaintiffs fell under a business or workplace ordinarily employing five or more workers by adding the number of workers employed abroad to the number of workers employed in Korea, and accordingly applied the dismissal-related provisions of the Labor Standards Act. Such determination by the court below contains an error that misapprehends the legal principles regarding the criteria for determining a "business or workplace ordinarily employing five or more workers" under Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act in an international employment relationship, and regarding the method of calculating the number of ordinarily employed workers, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further hearing and determination. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order, upon the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justice Ro Kyung-pil (Presiding Justice), Noh Tae-ak, Seo Kyung-hwan (Justice in Charge), Shin Sook-hee

【판결요지】

근로기준법 제11조는, 근로기준법은 상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 모든 사업 또는 사업장에 적용하고(제1항) 상시 4명 이하의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장에 대하여는 대통령령으로 정하는 바에 따라 이 법의 일부 규정을 적용할 수 있다(제2항)고 규정하여 ‘상시 사용하는 근로자 수’를 기준으로 근로기준법의 적용 범위를 달리 규율하고 있다. 외국기업이 국내에서 법인이나 영업소 등을 설립하여 사업활동을 영위하며 근로자를 사용하는 국제근로관계에서는 원칙적으로 ‘국내에서 사용하는 근로자 수’를 기준으로 근로기준법이 전면적으로 적용되는 ‘상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장’에 해당하는지를 판단해야 한다. 이유는 다음과 같다.

① 근로기준법 제11조의 사업 또는 사업장은 근로기준법의 적용 단위로서, 이는 근로조건의 규율, 근로자들 간의 의견 교환 및 협의, 경영상 해고를 비롯한 해고의 정당성 판단 등을 위한 기초 단위가 된다. 따라서 근로관계의 각종 규율이 통일적으로 적용될 수 있는 실질적으로 동일한 경제적, 사회적 활동단위라고 볼 수 있는 경우에 한하여 하나의 사업 또는 사업장을 구성할 수 있으므로, 근로기준법 제11조의 사업 또는 사업장은 대한민국 내에 위치한 사업 또는 사업장을 말한다고 보는 것이 타당하다.

② 외국기업이 외국에서 사용하는 근로자에 대하여는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 외국의 노동관계법령이 적용될 뿐이므로, 대한민국 근로기준법이 적용되지 않는 외국에서 사용하는 근로자 수까지 합산하여 근로기준법 제11조 제1항의 ‘상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장’에 해당하는지를 판단할 수는 없다.

【참조조문】

근로기준법 제11조

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,892자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 상고인】 유한회사 ○○○ 외 1인 (소송대리인 법무법인(유한) 대륙아주 담당변호사 김성훈 외 2인)

【피고, 피상고인】 중앙노동위원회위원장

【피고보조참가인】 피고보조참가인 (소송대리인 변호사 이재민)

【원심판결】 서울고법 2023. 2. 3. 선고 2022누32254 판결

【주 문】

원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.

【이 유】 상고이유를 판단한다.

1. 관련 법리

근로기준법 제11조는, 근로기준법은 상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 모든 사업 또는 사업장에 적용하고(제1항) 상시 4명 이하의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장에 대하여는 대통령령으로 정하는 바에 따라 이 법의 일부 규정을 적용할 수 있다(제2항)고 규정하여 ‘상시 사용하는 근로자 수’를 기준으로 근로기준법의 적용 범위를 달리 규율하고 있다. 외국기업이 국내에서 법인이나 영업소 등을 설립하여 사업활동을 영위하며 근로자를 사용하는 국제근로관계에서는 원칙적으로 ‘국내에서 사용하는 근로자 수’를 기준으로 근로기준법이 전면적으로 적용되는 ‘상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장’에 해당하는지 여부를 판단하여야 한다. 그 이유는 다음과 같다.

가. 근로기준법 제11조의 사업 또는 사업장은 근로기준법의 적용 단위로서, 이는 근로조건의 규율, 근로자들 간의 의견 교환 및 협의, 경영상 해고를 비롯한 해고의 정당성 판단 등을 위한 기초 단위가 된다. 따라서 근로관계의 각종 규율이 통일적으로 적용될 수 있는 실질적으로 동일한 경제적, 사회적 활동단위라고 볼 수 있는 경우에 한하여 하나의 사업 또는 사업장을 구성할 수 있으므로, 근로기준법 제11조의 사업 또는 사업장은 대한민국 내에 위치한 사업 또는 사업장을 말한다고 봄이 타당하다.

나. 외국기업이 외국에서 사용하는 근로자에 대하여는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 외국의 노동관계법령이 적용될 뿐이므로, 대한민국 근로기준법이 적용되지 않는 외국에서 사용하는 근로자 수까지 합산하여 근로기준법 제11조 제1항의 ‘상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장’에 해당하는지 여부를 판단할 수는 없다.

2. 판단

원심판결 이유 및 기록에 의하면 독일에 본사를 둔 바닥재와 도로용 제품을 제조, 판매하는 회사인 원고 △△△(이하 ‘원고 독일법인’이라 한다)는 대한민국 내에서의 영업을 위하여 원고 유한회사 ○○○(이하 ‘원고 한국법인’이라 한다)을 설립하였고, 이 사건 해고 무렵 원고 한국법인에는 피고보조참가인(이하 ‘참가인’이라 한다)과 소외인 2명이 상시 근무한 사실을 알 수 있다.

이러한 사실관계를 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 살펴보면, 참가인을 포함하더라도 원고 한국법인의 국내 상시 사용 근로자 수가 2명에 불과한 이상 원고 독일법인이 외국에서 사용하는 근로자 수까지 합산하면 상시 사용 근로자 수가 5명 이상이 된다고 하더라도 원고들이 근로기준법 제11조 제1항이 정한 상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.

그런데도 원심은 그 판시와 같은 사정만을 들어 원고들이 하나의 사업 또는 사업장을 구성한다고 본 다음 국내 근로자 수에 외국 근로자 수까지 합산한 결과 원고들이 상시 5명 이상의 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장에 해당한다고 판단하여 근로기준법의 해고 관련 규정을 적용하였다. 이러한 원심의 판단에는 국제근로관계에서 근로기준법 제11조 제1항의 상시 5명 이상 근로자를 사용하는 사업 또는 사업장의 판단 기준 및 상시 사용 근로자 수 산정방법에 관한 법리를 오해하여 판결에 영향을 미친 잘못이 있다.

3. 결론

나머지 상고이유에 대한 판단을 생략한 채 원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 다시 심리·판단하도록 원심법원에 환송하기로 하여, 관여 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 노경필(재판장) 노태악 서경환(주심) 신숙희

Related statutes

근로기준법 제11조

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2023두46074 · 대법원 2024-10-25
Revocation of Retrial Decision on Remedy for Unfair Dismissa
#2
69나332,333 · 서울고법 1970-02-18
임금등청구사건
#3
72나1004 · 서울고법 1973-06-29
취업임금청구사건
#4
94도3250 · 대법원 1995-06-13
Violation of the Employment Security and Employment Promotio
#5
71나3027 · 서울고법 1972-07-14
임금청구사건

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)