Workplace Harassment in Korea: First, the Basics

If you run a business in Korea, workplace harassment is one of the most important topics to be aware of. It is not a soft-skills issue. Rather, it is a statutory compliance obligation with reporting duties, investigation requirements with potential criminal exposure.

Just yesterday on July 2, 2026, the Ministry of Employment and Labor (MOEL) announced a revised Workplace Harassment Prevention and Response Manual introducing additional measures to be followed. In light of this change, we believe it would be helpful to first start with the basics of workplace harassment with what the law actually requires, and where employers most often get it wrong.

The Governing Principle

Under Article 76-2 of the Labor Standards Act , an employer or employee must not use their superior position or relationship in the workplace to cause physical or mental suffering to another employee, or to worsen that employee's working environment, beyond the reasonable scope of work.

Break that down and you get three elements, all of which must be present:

1. Superiority of status or relationship — not limited to formal rank; can include seniority, tenure, informal influence, or numerical/group dynamics.
2. Exceeding the reasonable scope of work — the conduct goes beyond what is objectively necessary or appropriate for the job.
3. Resulting harm — physical or mental suffering, or a deteriorated work environment, for the other employee.

A single unpleasant interaction rarely meets this bar on its own. Courts and labor authorities look at the pattern, context, and relationship dynamics — which is exactly why the 2026 manual revision leans so heavily on real determination cases rather than abstract rules.

What the Law Requires Employers to Do

Article 76-3 sets out the employer's response obligations once harassment is reported or the employer otherwise becomes aware of it:

• Conduct a prompt, objective investigation into the facts.
• Take necessary protective measures for the reporting or affected employee during the investigation — for example, a temporary change in work location or paid leave.
• Where harassment is confirmed, take appropriate action against the affected employee (with their input sought before deciding on measures) and disciplinary or other necessary action against the perpetrator.
• Maintain confidentiality of information obtained during the investigation.
• Prohibit dismissal or other disadvantageous treatment of the reporting employee or the affected employee.

These are not best practices but are statutory duties. Retaliation against a reporting or affected employee, for instance, can result in criminal liabilities. Several of the procedural failures — inadequate investigation, failure to take protective or corrective measures, breach of confidentiality — carry criminal fines as well.

Why This Matters More Now

Reported cases handled by labor authorities have climbed steadily from 7,774 in 2021 to 16,373 in 2025. MOEL's own framing of the 2026 manual revision signals where enforcement attention is headed.

• No more "self-investigation." Where the employer (or a person acting for the employer, such as a senior HR or management figure) is the one reported as the perpetrator, that person must now be excluded from the investigation process, with recusal procedures for the investigation committee made explicit.
• A much larger bank of real determination cases, organized by investigation stage, judgment criteria, and conduct type. This is useful for benchmarking your own internal cases against actual outcomes.
• Expanded support for smaller workplaces (under 50 employees), including free prevention training run jointly with the Korea Labor Education Institute.

A Quick Self-Check for Employers

• Does your internal harassment reporting channel identify a fallback investigator if a senior manager or the business owner is named as the alleged perpetrator?
• Do your employment rules (취업규칙) already include harassment prevention and response procedures, as required?
• Is your investigation timeline documented, with protective measures considered from the moment a report is received, not just after harassment is confirmed?
• Are confidentiality obligations for anyone involved in an investigation made explicit, in writing?
• Do supervisors know that a single incident can still qualify as harassment if it is severe enough, without needing a pattern of repeated conduct?

This post is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Workplace harassment determinations are highly fact-specific, and employers facing an actual report or investigation should seek advice tailored to their situation.

If your company doesn't yet have a harassment response protocol that would hold up to MOEL's revised investigation standards, that's a gap worth closing before it becomes a live case. Feel free toget in touch with us on any questions.

© 2026 SJ Chun. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced, copied, or republished, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from the author.