The line you hear most often around dismissal in Korea is “I gave a month’s notice, so it’s fine.” Open the statute and the 30-day notice turns out to be only one of three separate requirements — and missing either of the other two puts the dismissal itself in question, notice or no notice.
1. Is “I gave a month's notice” enough. No. The 30-day notice is one of three requirements — ① just cause (Art. 23(1)), ② written notice (Art. 27), ③ 30 days' advance notice (Art. 26). Miss either of the first two and the dismissal itself is in question, notice or no notice.
2. What am I owed. Dismissal without notice carries 30 days or more of ordinary wages (Art. 26). And a dismissal not given in writing has no effect under Art. 27(2) — a messaging app or a verbal sacking is a problem in itself.
3. By when. Relief must be sought within three months of the day it happened (Art. 28(2)). Miss it and it is hard to undo — if you intend to fight, start counting from day one.
4. At four or fewer staff, only the third row survives. Appendix 1 to the Decree lists Article 26 but not Articles 23(1), 27 or 28 — the notice allowance still stands, but just cause, written notice and Labor Commission relief cannot be pursued under this Act. Set out below under “Under five staff, one of the three rows survives.”
How many things does the statute require
That is the starting point. “I gave notice, so we’re done” does not hold because notice is only the last of the three.
| What the statute requires | Basis | If not met |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Just cause | Art. 23(1) | Unfair dismissal — relief before the Labor Relations Commission |
| 2. Written notice | Art. 27(1) and (2) | The dismissal has no legal effect |
| 3. 30 days’ advance notice | Art. 26 | Pay 30 days or more of ordinary wages |
Only the third is a requirement money can settle. Article 26 says pay an allowance if notice was skipped; it does not say the dismissal is void. The second cannot be substituted with money — because the statute uses the phrase “shall have effect.”
So receiving the notice allowance does not bar you from seeking relief for unfair dismissal. They are different provisions.
I was told over a messaging app
Article 27(1) To dismiss a worker, an employer shall notify the worker in writing of the grounds for and the timing of the dismissal.
Article 27(2) A dismissal of a worker shall have effect only where notified in writing under paragraph (1).
Article 27(3) Where an employer has given the advance notice under Article 26 in writing, specifying the grounds and timing of the dismissal, the notice under paragraph (1) shall be deemed to have been given.
- Paragraph (2) is the heaviest sentence in this article. Read plainly, without writing the dismissal does not take effect. If all you got was a messenger note, a text, or a spoken word, that is where the dispute begins.
- The statute also fixes what the writing must contain — the grounds and the timing. Where the grounds are vague, whether paragraph (1) was satisfied becomes the issue.
- Paragraph (3) exists to save paperwork. If the 30-day advance notice was given in writing with the grounds and timing spelled out, that counts as the paragraph (1) notice. If the advance notice was verbal, this effect does not arise.
Split it by whether notice was given and whether it was in writing: four routes.
What am I owed if there was no notice
Article 26 To dismiss a worker, an employer shall give advance notice at least 30 days beforehand, and where notice is not given 30 days in advance, shall pay 30 days or more of ordinary wages. Provided, that this shall not apply in any of the following cases:
1. Where the worker’s continuous service is less than three months;
2. Where continuing the business is impossible due to a natural disaster, an incident, or other unavoidable cause;
3. Where the worker has intentionally caused serious impediment to the business or property damage, on grounds prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.
| Dismissal without notice is allowed when | Provision | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous service under three months | Art. 26 proviso, item 1 | The test is three months, separate from probation |
| Disaster or incident makes the business impossible | Same proviso, item 2 | The business itself must be impossible |
| Worker intentionally caused serious harm | Same proviso, item 3 | Specific grounds sit in a Ministry Ordinance we could not open |
It is “30 days or more of ordinary wages,” not average wages. (The one that runs on 70% of the average wage is the shutdown allowance.) Ordinary wages generally exclude bonuses and incentive pay, so the figure differs from take-home pay — pay composition is covered in our take-home salary calculator.
Item 3 requires intent. Damage caused by mistake does not fall within the wording.
Item 1 turns on “continuous service.” The number matches the usual three-month probation, but it is a different rule — probation pay reduction is covered in our part-time pay calculator.
Draw where the three provisos attach and they all land on one side.
Are there periods when dismissal is barred
Article 23(1) An employer shall not dismiss, lay off, suspend, transfer, reduce the wages of, or otherwise punish a worker without just cause (hereinafter “unfair dismissal, etc.”).
Article 23(2) An employer shall not dismiss a worker during a period of suspension of work for medical treatment of an occupational injury or disease and for 30 days thereafter, or, in the case of a woman before or after childbirth, during the period of suspension under this Act and for 30 days thereafter.
- Paragraph (1) covers more than dismissal. Layoff, suspension, transfer and wage reduction are bundled together as “unfair dismissal, etc.” A pay cut or an unwanted transfer is contested under the same provision.
- During the periods in paragraph (2), dismissal is barred even where just cause exists. The medical-treatment and childbirth suspension periods carry an extra 30 days on top.
- The bar on dismissal during childcare leave is not here — it is Article 19(3) of the Equal Employment Act, covered in our childcare leave benefit guide.
How long do I have to fight it
Article 28(1) Where an employer commits an unfair dismissal, etc., the worker may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for relief.
Article 28(2) An application under paragraph (1) shall be filed within three months from the date the unfair dismissal, etc. occurred.
It runs from the date it occurred, not from the date you found out. Keep talking with the company and three months slips past — this is the deadline people miss most.
Because the subject is “unfair dismissal, etc.,” the same three months applies to pay cuts, suspensions and transfers.
| What | Where | By when |
|---|---|---|
| Relief for unfair dismissal, etc. | Labor Relations Commission | Within 3 months of the date it occurred (Art. 28(2)) |
| Notice allowance (30 days’ ordinary wages) | — | No deadline stated in Article 26 |
| Dispute over written notice | — | Runs into the legal-effect question in Art. 27(2) |
The second and third rows mean the statute itself states no deadline. There is, though, one limitation provision in the same Act.
Article 49 (Prescription of wages) A claim for wages under this Act extinguishes by prescription if not exercised for three years.
Whether the notice allowance is such a “claim for wages” is not settled by the text — Article 26 says only “shall pay ordinary wages” and Article 49 says only “a claim for wages under this Act”. No sentence joins them, so we do not assert it. Money is at stake, so it is safer to ask the Ministry of Employment and Labor (1350) first.
Under five staff, one of the three rows survives
Below, this piece says “which provisions reach workplaces of four or fewer is left to a table in the Decree, which we could not open this time.” We opened it.
Labor Standards Act Enforcement Decree, Article 7 (Scope) Under Article 11(2) of the Act, the provisions applying to a business using four or fewer regular employees shall be as in appendix 1.
[Appendix 1] <amended 29 June 2018> Chapter 2, employment contracts — Articles 15, 17, 18, 19(1), 20 to 22, 23(2), 26, 35 to 42 / Chapter 3, wages — Articles 43 to 45 and 47 to 49 …
What matters is less what is on the list than what is missing. The chapter 2 cell has 23(2) but not 23(1), and 27 and 28 are absent entirely. Article 26 is there.
So at four or fewer staff the first thing to count is whether notice was given. Article 26 survives, so dismissal without notice still carries 30 days or more of ordinary wages. Article 49, the three-year prescription, is on the list too.
What is not open is the road marked “unfair dismissal” to the Labor Relations Commission — Article 28 is not on the list. Routes outside this Act, civil claims among them, are beyond this piece.
Questions that keep splitting opinion
What if I accept a recommended resignation?
The statute contains no such term. The Labor Standards Act governs dismissal by the employer; sign a resignation letter and the form becomes the worker resigning. Eligibility for unemployment benefit sits under the Employment Insurance Act, not these provisions, so we will not assert it here — for the amount, see our unemployment benefit calculator.
Is dismissal free during probation?
No provision says probation permits dismissal. Item 1 of the Article 26 proviso only waives the notice obligation where continuous service is under three months. No notice obligation is not the same as no need for just cause.
“Without exception” was wrong, though — we wrote that here, and Article 23(1) does not reach workplaces with four or fewer regular employees (Decree appendix 1); see “Under five staff, one of the three rows survives” above. At five or more, Article 23(1) applies whether or not you are on probation.
I was told by text message
Article 27(1) says only “in writing,” and whether an electronic document counts is not addressed in this provision. But another Act does address the word.
Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions, Article 4-2 (When an electronic document counts as writing) Where an electronic document meets all of the following, it shall be regarded as writing. Provided that this does not apply where another statute provides otherwise, or where an electronic form is not permitted by the nature of the matter.
1. its contents can be read
2. it is preserved in the form in which it was created, sent, received or stored, or a form that reproduces it [inserted 9 June 2020]
Article 4 (Effect) (1) An electronic document shall not be denied legal effect merely because it is electronic.
The default is “regarded as writing.” So “it was a text message, therefore void” does not follow. The proviso, though, leaves two doors open — another statute providing otherwise, and the nature of the matter not permitting an electronic form. Whether Article 27 is that other statute, and whether notifying a dismissal is that kind of matter, is exactly what the dispute is about.
The text does not settle it either way. We again did not check case law or administrative interpretations, so we declare it neither void nor valid. What is established is only that the argument does not end at “Article 27 is silent” — it runs on into the proviso to Article 4-2.
Is severance pay the same as the notice allowance?
No. The notice allowance comes from Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act; severance pay comes from the Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act — different statutes entirely. As a rule you receive both; the calculation is in our severance pay calculator.
Does this apply to workplaces with fewer than five employees?
Partly. Article 11(1) sets the scope at five or more regular employees, and Article 11(2) → Decree Article 7 → appendix 1 enumerates what reaches four or fewer. Article 26 (notice) is on the list; Articles 23(1), 27 and 28 are not.
So at four or fewer you can claim the notice allowance but cannot bring an unfair-dismissal application under this Act. The comparison table is under “Under five staff, one of the three rows survives” above. The same provision is discussed in our annual leave guide.
Dismissal is not settled by whether notice was given. Just cause, written notice and 30 days’ notice are three different provisions, and failing each one leads somewhere different.
Sources
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Labor Standards Act, Article 27 (Written Notice of Grounds for Dismissal) [in force 23 Oct 2025, Act No. 20520]. Source of paragraph (2) tying legal effect to written notice and paragraph (3) deeming a written advance notice sufficient.
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Same Act, Article 26 (Advance Notice of Dismissal). Source of the 30-day notice, the 30 days of ordinary wages, and the three exceptions (under three months, disaster, intentional harm).
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Same Act, Article 23 (Restrictions on Dismissal). Source of “shall not dismiss, lay off, suspend, transfer, reduce wages … without just cause” and of the protected periods in paragraph (2).
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Same Act, Article 28 (Application for Relief). Source of the Labor Relations Commission route and the three months from the date it occurred.
- National Law Information Center — Decree and appendix — Labor Standards Act Enforcement Decree, Article 7 (Scope) and [appendix 1] provisions applying to a business using four or fewer regular employees (under art. 7, amended 29 June 2018). Opened in the appendix viewer: the chapter 2 cell carries 23(2) and 26 but not 23(1), 27 or 28, and the chapter 3 cell carries 47 to 49. Decree in force 23 October 2025, Presidential Decree No. 35436.
- National Law Information Center — statutory text — Same Act, Article 49 (Prescription of wages). Source of “a claim for wages under this Act extinguishes by prescription if not exercised for three years.”
- National Law Information Center — statutory text — Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions, Article 4-2 and Article 4. Source of “shall be regarded as writing” and its two provisos. In force 20 October 2022, Act No. 18478.
Where to check further
- How “just cause” is judged. Article 23 uses the phrase and sets no test in the text — it is built from case law, so the Ministry of Employment and Labor helpline (1350) and the Labor Relations Commission assess it case by case.
- How to recover unpaid notice pay. Article 26 imposes the duty and stops there — the practical route is a wage-arrears complaint to the regional labor office, and the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (132) represents you free of charge.
- How the electronic-documents proviso lands on a dismissal notice. Article 4-2 says “regarded as writing”, but the proviso keeps back “another statute providing otherwise” and “the nature of the matter” — the text does not decide it, so case law and administrative interpretation are needed.
- Whether the three-year prescription in Article 49 covers the notice allowance. Article 26 says “shall pay ordinary wages” and Article 49 says “a claim for wages under this Act”; nothing joins them.
- Routes outside this Act at four or fewer staff. Appendix 1 settles the range inside the Labor Standards Act, but civil and other routes are beyond this piece — the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (132) advises free of charge.
Written in August 2026 and revisited in September. All quotations are the statutory text as published by the National Law Information Center, and what we could not confirm is listed separately above. On the September pass we opened appendix 1 to the Decree to settle what reaches four or fewer staff, and in doing so corrected the sentence that said Article 23(1) “applies without exception.” Article 4-2 of the Electronic Documents Act and Article 49 were opened as well. Outcomes turn heavily on individual facts and the deadlines are short — if there is a dispute, check first with the Ministry of Employment and Labor counselling line (1350) or a certified labor attorney. This article is general information, not legal advice.
