Workplace harassment entered Korea’s Labor Standards Act in 2019, which makes it a relatively new part of the statute. Before asking “where is the line?” there is something else worth checking — the statute splits the definition into three pieces, sets out seven paragraphs of duties for a company that receives a report, and attaches a criminal penalty to exactly one of them.
1. Where is the line. The statute wants all three pieces (Art. 76-2) — ① superiority of position or relationship (not position alone), ② beyond the proper scope of work, ③ suffering or a worsened work environment. The test is not the instruction itself but whether it went beyond the scope.
2. What must the employer do. Anyone may report it, and the employer must investigate without delay (Art. 76-3). The duties run to seven paragraphs.
3. What are the penalties. Exactly one of them is criminal — disadvantaging the reporter or the victim carries up to three years' imprisonment (Art. 109). The rest are administrative fines. If you were disadvantaged, the clock is short, so fix the dates first.
Where exactly is the line
Article 76-2 No employer or worker shall use superiority in rank or in relationships at the workplace to go beyond the proper scope of work and thereby inflict physical or mental suffering on another worker or worsen that worker’s work environment (hereinafter “workplace harassment”).
| Piece | The statutory wording | Where it turns |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Superiority | “superiority in rank or in relationships at the workplace” | Not rank alone — relationships count too |
| 2. Beyond scope | “beyond the proper scope of work” | Not the instruction itself, but whether it exceeded the scope |
| 3. Result | “inflict suffering or worsen the work environment” | It is an “or” — either one suffices |
It opens with “no employer or worker.” So this is not only about bosses; it holds between colleagues too. That is plainly why “relationships” sits alongside rank — equal job titles can still involve superiority through numbers, seniority, or work dependency.
The “or” in the third piece matters just as much. Even without a medical certificate, a case can rest on a worsened work environment.
That said, the statute never defines “proper scope.” The concrete test lives outside the text.
Cut the definition into three and all three are required — but only the last says “or”.
What must the employer do
Article 76-3(1) Anyone who becomes aware of workplace harassment may report it to the employer.
(2) Upon receiving a report or otherwise becoming aware, the employer shall without delay conduct an objective investigation of the parties to confirm the facts.
(3) During the investigation the employer shall, where necessary to protect the victim, take appropriate measures such as a change of workplace or an order of paid leave. In such cases the employer shall not take measures against the victim’s will.
(4) … the employer shall, where the victim so requests, take appropriate measures such as a change of workplace, reassignment, or an order of paid leave.
(5) … the employer shall without delay take necessary measures against the perpetrator, such as discipline or a change of workplace. In such cases the employer shall hear the victim’s opinion before taking those measures.
(6) The employer shall not dismiss or otherwise disadvantage the worker who made the report or the victim.
(7) A person who participated in the investigation shall not disclose secrets learned … to others against the victim’s will.
| Stage | What the employer must do | Provision |
|---|---|---|
| Report received or noticed | Objective investigation without delay | Art. 76-3(2) |
| During the investigation | Protective measures — not against the victim’s will | Same art. (3) |
| After harassment is confirmed | If the victim requests: workplace change, reassignment, paid leave | Same art. (4) |
| After harassment is confirmed | Discipline the perpetrator without delay — hear the victim first | Same art. (5) |
| Throughout | No disadvantage to reporter or victim / no disclosure of secrets | Same art. (6), (7) |
Paragraph (3)’s “shall not take measures against the victim’s will” is what practice most often gets wrong. The reflex of “let’s move the victim to another team for now” reads as a breach whenever the victim does not want it.
Paragraph (4) says “if the victim requests” while paragraph (5) says “without delay” — measures for the victim wait on a request; discipline of the perpetrator does not.
Because paragraph (1) says “anyone,” a colleague who witnessed it can report. And paragraph (6) protects “the worker who made the report” as well as the victim.
Lay the seven paragraphs against their penalties and the weights are not even.
What are the penalties
Article 109(1) A person who violates … Article 76-3(6) … shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.
Article 116(1) Where an employer (including relatives of the employer prescribed by Presidential Decree) commits workplace harassment in violation of Article 76-2, an administrative fine not exceeding 10 million won shall be imposed.
Article 116(2), item 2 A person who violates Article 76-3(2), (4), (5) or (7) … shall be subject to an administrative fine not exceeding 5 million won.
| What was breached | Basis | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Dismissing or disadvantaging the reporter or victim | Art. 76-3(6) → Art. 109(1) | Up to 3 years’ imprisonment or a 30m won fine |
| The employer personally harassed someone | Art. 76-2 → Art. 116(1) | Administrative fine up to 10m won |
| Failure to investigate, act, or keep confidence | Art. 76-3(2)(4)(5)(7) → Art. 116(2)2 | Administrative fine up to 5m won |
In the whole scheme, the only criminal penalty attaches to a breach of paragraph (6). In other words, the law treats “punishing someone for reporting” more severely than the harassment itself. If an unjustified transfer, pay cut or dismissal followed a report, this is the provision that bites.
Article 116(1) is limited to what the employer did. Harassment by a fellow worker does not draw this fine — what the law demands there is the company’s investigation and discipline (Art. 76-3(5)).
Article 116(2) item 2 points at paragraphs (2), (4), (5) and (7) — paragraph (3), protection during the investigation, is not on the fine list. It is a duty, but it sits outside the penalty provision.
What if you were disadvantaged
A breach of Article 76-3(6) is a criminal matter, but undoing the measure itself — the dismissal, the pay cut, the transfer — runs through different provisions.
- Article 23(1) bundles dismissal, layoff, suspension, transfer and wage reduction as “unfair dismissal, etc.,” and Article 28(2) requires an application to the Labor Relations Commission within three months of the date it occurred. A transfer or pay cut that followed your report falls inside that three months — details are in our dismissal notice and unfair dismissal guide.
- An order of paid leave during the investigation (Art. 76-3(3)) is not annual leave. Annual leave is governed separately by Article 60, so this order is not structured to eat into your annual leave — the rules are in our annual leave guide.
- Where the disadvantage touches pay, the ordinary-wage versus average-wage distinction follows — see our take-home salary calculator.
- Whether quitting because of harassment qualifies you for unemployment benefit is not settled by these provisions. That sits under the Employment Insurance Act, so we do not assert it here — only the amount is covered in our unemployment benefit calculator.
Questions that keep splitting opinion
Is a harsh work instruction harassment?
The statute requires that the conduct go “beyond the proper scope of work.” But the statute never defines “proper scope.” What the text supports is only this: a work instruction is not harassment in itself; the issue is whether it exceeded the scope.
What about things that happen outside the office?
The provision contains no place requirement. Article 76-2 speaks of “superiority in rank or in relationships at the workplace,” which locates the source of the superiority at work but says nothing about where the conduct must occur. For after-hours situations such as company dinners or messenger apps, we do not assert an answer from the text alone.
Does it apply to workplaces with fewer than five employees?
It does not. Article 11(1) sets the Act's scope at five or more regular employees, and 11(2) leaves it to the Decree to say which parts of the Act reach workplaces of four or fewer. That list is table 1 of the Enforcement Decree — and under chapter 6 (safety and health) the only provision listed is article 76. Articles 76-2 and 76-3 are not on it.
The penalties fall away with them. The chapter 12 entry in table 1 reads “articles 107 through 116 (limited to breaches of provisions that apply to workplaces of four or fewer)”. Since the harassment provisions do not apply, neither article 109(1) (imprisonment or fine) nor article 116 (administrative fine) can attach. Article 23(1) (restriction on dismissal and the like) and article 28 (relief applications) are also absent — though article 26 (notice of dismissal) is there.
The reason for the absence is worth naming. Table 1 was last amended on 29 June 2018, and the harassment provisions were added in 2019. So the table did not drop them — it has never contained them. But the list is exhaustive, so whatever the reason, what is not listed does not apply. Under five employees, check your own case with the ministry helpline (1350).
Can I report anonymously?
The statute says nothing about how a report is made. Paragraph (1) goes only as far as “anyone … may report,” and anonymity, intake channels and forms are absent from the text. What is confirmed is that paragraph (7) forbids disclosing secrets and that a breach draws a fine (Art. 116(2)2).
What if the company simply does not investigate?
A breach of paragraph (2) draws an administrative fine of up to 5 million won (Art. 116(2)2). And if the company disadvantages the reporter while never investigating, that is a separate breach of paragraph (6) and becomes criminal. The two provisions bite independently.
What this scheme treats most seriously is not the harassment itself but the act of punishing someone for reporting it. That is where the one criminal provision sits.
Sources
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Labor Standards Act, Article 76-3 (Measures upon Occurrence of Workplace Harassment) [in force 23 Oct 2025, Act No. 20520]. Source of paragraph (1) “anyone”, (2) investigation without delay, (3) no measures against the victim’s will, (4) “if the victim requests”, (5) discipline without delay and hearing the victim, (6) no disadvantage, and (7) confidentiality.
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Same Act, Article 76-2 (Prohibition of Workplace Harassment). Source of “employer or worker,” “superiority in rank or in relationships,” “beyond the proper scope of work,” and “inflict suffering or worsen the work environment.”
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Same Act, Article 109 (Penal Provisions). Basis for the three years’ imprisonment or 30 million won fine for breaching Article 76-3(6).
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Same Act, Article 116 (Administrative Fines). Source of paragraph (1) (employer breaching Art. 76-2, up to 10 million won) and paragraph (2) item 2 (Art. 76-3(2)(4)(5)(7), up to 5 million won).
- National Law Information Center — appendix text (checked 17 September 2026) — Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, table 1: provisions applied to workplaces with four or fewer regular employees (re art. 7), amended 29 June 2018. Source for chapter 6 listing only article 76, for article 23(2) being listed while 23(1) and 28 are not, and for the chapter 12 entry being limited to breaches of provisions that apply.
Where to check further
- How “beyond the proper scope of work” is judged. The statute uses the phrase and sets no test — the Ministry of Employment and Labor's harassment manual carries worked examples by type, and the helpline (1350) assesses individual cases.
- What happens when the employer does not investigate. The statute imposes the duty and stops there — a complaint to the regional labor office is the practical route, and anonymous reports go to the ministry's workplace harassment report centre.
- Whether your workplace is at five or more. That the harassment provisions do not reach workplaces under five is now settled from table 1 (see §fewer than five). What remains is the counting, and Decree article 7-2 has a switch in it. Paragraph (1) is total person-days over the month before the triggering event, divided by days operated — but paragraph (2) opens with “notwithstanding paragraph (1)”: even where the average falls short of five, if the number of days below five is less than half the period, the workplace counts as five or more. The reverse applies too. An average alone can give you the wrong answer. The labor helpline (1350) will check it against your workplace.
Written as of August 2026. All quotations are the statutory text as published by the National Law Information Center, and what we could not confirm is listed separately above. Individual assessments turn heavily on the facts and the window for seeking relief is short — check with the Ministry of Employment and Labor counselling line (1350) or a certified labor attorney. This article is general information, not legal advice.
