Workplace Harassment in Korea, Part 8: Does the Law Even Apply to Your Four-Person Office?

Many foreign-invested companies start small in Korea. A regional sales office. A liaison office that grew into a handful of local hires. A startup's first Korea team. At that size, a common and reasonable question comes up: do all kinds of restrictions under the labor law actually apply to us?

This is Part 8 of our series on workplace harassment under Korean labor law. Part 1 covered the basic legal definition. Part 2 covered the investigation duty. Part 3 covered victim protection. Part 4 covered reporting channels. Part 5 and Part 6 covered the reasonable scope of work and reporting abuse. Part 7 covered disadvantageous treatment. Every one of those posts assumed the statutory framework applies. This post asks the question those posts skipped past: when does it not.

The Five-Employee Line

Under Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act, the Act generally applies to any workplace ordinarily employing five or more workers. Article 11, Paragraph 2 allows certain provisions of the Act to be extended, by Presidential Decree, to workplaces with four or fewer regular employees.

The specific list of extended provisions appears in Article 7 and Attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act. As of today (29 August 2026), Article 76-2 (the harassment prohibition) and Article 76-3 (the employer's investigation and response duties) are not on that list. In plain terms, a workplace with fewer than five regular employees is not currently bound by the statutory harassment framework covered in Parts 1 through 7 of this series.

This Does Not Mean No Legal Exposure

A company below the five-employee threshold is not exempt from every legal consequence connected to harassing conduct. Several other paths remain fully available, regardless of headcount.

General tort liability under the Civil Act. Harassing conduct can constitute an unlawful act under Article 750 of the Civil Act, exposing the individual perpetrator to a claim for damages. Where that perpetrator was acting within the scope of duties assigned by the employer, Article 756 of the Civil Act can extend liability to the employer itself, on a theory of vicarious liability. Neither provision has an employee-count threshold.

Criminal Act exposure. Conduct involving verbal abuse, threats, or physical contact can separately trigger criminal liability, for example under the Criminal Act's provisions on insult, intimidation, or assault. These provisions apply regardless of company size and are entirely independent of the Labor Standards Act.

Sexual harassment is governed by a different statute entirely. Where the conduct at issue has a sexual harassment character, the relevant framework is the Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation, not the Labor Standards Act's harassment provisions. That statute's own prevention and response obligations are not tied to the same five-employee threshold.

Industrial accident claims. An employee who develops a diagnosed psychological condition connected to workplace stress, including stress arising from mistreatment at work, may in some circumstances be able to pursue an industrial accident claim.

A Threshold That May Not Stay Where It Is

The Korean government has signaled an intention to expand Labor Standards Act coverage to workplaces with fewer than five employees in phases, and workplace harassment protection has been mentioned as an early candidate for that expansion. As of this writing, no confirmed effective date or finalized scope has been set for extending Article 76-2 and Article 76-3 specifically. Employers who fall just under the threshold should treat this as a matter to monitor, not a settled question to file away.

What This Means in Practice

For a foreign-invested employer with fewer than five regular employees in Korea, the absence of a statutory investigation duty is not the same as an absence of risk. A tort claim, a criminal complaint, or a claim under the separate sexual harassment framework can all proceed regardless of whether Article 76-3 technically applies. Building an internal reporting and response process now, even without a legal mandate to do so, is the more defensible position, and it prepares the company for the coverage expansion that appears to be coming.

For a foreign employee working at a small company in Korea, the absence of the Article 76-3 investigation duty does not mean there is no recourse. A civil claim against the individual perpetrator, and in some cases against the employer, generally remains available, along with a criminal complaint where the conduct crosses into criminal territory. Documentation matters just as much here as in a larger company, arguably more, since there is no internal investigation record to fall back on.

Series Note

This Part 8 addressed whether Korea's statutory workplace harassment framework applies to companies with fewer than five employees, and what other legal exposure remains even where it does not. It follows Part 1 (the legal definition), Part 2 (the investigation duty), Part 3 (victim protection), Part 4 (reporting channels), Part 5 (the reasonable scope of work), Part 6 (abuse of the reporting system), and Part 7 (disadvantageous treatment).

---

This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Whether a specific workplace meets the five-employee threshold, and what obligations follow from that determination, is fact-specific. For guidance on your company's particular situation in Korea, please consult qualified Korean attorney.

For inquiries, please contact sjchun@seoulcounsel.com.