궁금한 내용을 검색해보세요
즐겨찾기
전체글
인기글
공지사항

산업안전보건교육

Case Study: How Should a Foreign-Invested Company Structure OSH Training for Office-Only Staff?
2026.08.25 09:34
조회 18스크랩 3
Occupational Safety & Health Training

Case Study: How Should a Foreign-Invested Company
Structure OSH Training for Office-Only Staff?

"Office work" is not "works in an office".

📌 Key takeaways

  • Korea does have an exemption for office-only workplaces, and it is broader than most exemptions in Korean labour law it removes the whole of Chapter 3 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is the entire worker training regime. It is also far harder to qualify for than global HR teams assume.
  • The word doing the work is only. A workplace qualifies where it uses workers engaged in office work and no one else. One field engineer, one warehouse hand, one showroom staffer on the payroll and the exemption is gone for the whole entity.
  • "Office work" is not "works in an office". The Ministry's interpretation reads it as management-support work that does not perform the business's actual industrial activity, cross-checked against the Korean Standard Classification of Occupations. On that reading, marketing, sales and software development staff at a company whose business is marketing, selling or developing software are not office workers even though every one of them sits at a desk.
  • A second, narrower exemption runs by industry rather than by job. Financial and insurance, software publishing, computer programming and systems integration, information services, and several other listed sectors are excluded from Articles 29 and 30 but not from special training, and not from the rest of the Act. A wholesale or trading subsidiary, which is what a large share of foreign-invested entities are, appears on neither list.
  • Where the duty does apply, the group's global framework transfers only partly. Live virtual instruction from headquarters is an accepted delivery method under the Korean rules; a recorded module on the group LMS most likely is not. That distinction is worth more to a global EHS team than any amount of ISO 45001 documentation.

🏢 The case

The scenario below is a composite drawn from the questions global HR teams actually send us. The figures are illustrative; the analysis is not.
Company A is the Korean subsidiary of a European instrumentation group, incorporated in 2019, selling and servicing laboratory equipment imported from the parent. Its Korean business is registered as wholesale trade. Headcount is 74.
Population Number Location and work
Corporate functions 22 Seoul office — finance, HR, legal, IT support, general affairs
Sales and marketing 39 Seoul office — inside sales, key accounts, product marketing
Field service engineers 8 Customer sites — installation, calibration, repair of instruments
Logistics staff 3 Leased warehouse space near Incheon — receiving, staging, dispatch
Dispatched workers 2 Seoul office — reception and administrative support
Contractor personnel — Daily cleaning crew; periodic facilities maintenance
 
Group EHS runs a certified ISO 45001 management system. Every employee completes a 45-minute English-language health and safety module on the group LMS each January, with completion tracked centrally and reported into the group's annual sustainability disclosure.
The Korean managing director has asked global HR a straightforward question: we are an office company, our people sit at desks, do we need to do anything else?

❓ Question one: does the office-only exemption apply?

It does not, and it fails twice over. Working through why is the most useful part of this case, because the two failure points are different in kind and each one catches a different sort of entity.
The first failure is the field engineers and the warehouse. The Enforcement Decree's Appendix 1 item on office-only workplaces reads, in substance, "a workplace that uses only workers engaged in office work (including, where workplaces are separated, a workplace that uses only workers engaged in office work)". Eleven people at Company A install instruments at customer sites or move goods in a warehouse. Whatever else those roles are, they are not office work, and their presence on the payroll of the same employer takes the entity outside the provision.
The parenthetical is worth reading closely, because it is the one route through. Where workplaces are genuinely separated, a workplace that uses only office workers can qualify on its own. That is a real structural option but separation has to be actual, organisational as well as physical, not a floor plan. An entity hoping to rely on it should take advice on its specific facts rather than assume the Seoul office qualifies because the warehouse has a different address.
The second failure is more interesting, and it would have caught Company A even with no engineers and no warehouse. The Ministry's interpretation of "office work" is not locational. Administrative guidance describes it as work that plans, manages and supports corporate strategy and organisation controlling and administering the operation of the business rather than performing its direct industrial activity assessed against the actual duties performed and against major group 3 (clerks) of the Korean Standard Classification of Occupations.
Apply that to Company A. Its business is the sale and service of instruments. The 39 people in sales and marketing are not supporting that business from a distance; they are that business. On the Ministry's reading they are performing the entity's main industrial activity, and they are not office workers for these purposes notwithstanding that their working day is indistinguishable from the finance team's.
This is the point at which most foreign-invested entities lose an argument they did not know they were having. A Korean sales subsidiary with no factory, no warehouse and no field staff one floor, 50 desks can still fall outside the office-only provision because selling is what the company does. Entities that reason from the furniture reach the wrong answer with complete confidence.

❓ Question two: is there a different exemption that fits?

  Office-only workplace Listed industries
Test Uses only workers engaged in office work Falls within a listed industry classification
Examples A separated head office performing only management-support functions Financial and insurance; software publishing; computer programming, systems integration and management; information services; architectural, engineering and other scientific and technical services; business support services; social welfare services
What is disapplied The whole of Chapter 3 (worker training), together with parts of the safety and health management structure provisions Articles 29 and 30 only
Regular training Not required Not required
New-hire and job-change training Not required Not required
Special training Not required Still required
Everything else in the Act Applies Applies
Fails if One non-office worker is employed The entity's classification is not on the list
 
Company A is registered as wholesale trade. That classification is not on the list, so the second route is closed as well. Its full worker training duty applies.
This table is the one to keep. Many multinational groups run several Korean entities under one HR function a trading company, a software arm, a shared service centre, sometimes a research subsidiary and each sits in a different column. Treating them as one compliance population is how entities end up with a uniform programme that is redundant for one and deficient for another.

❓ Question three: what does Company A actually owe?

Once both exemptions close, the ordinary regime applies in full, and it is organised around the distinction Company A's global framework does not make: office work versus everything else.
Training Office workers Sales staff (direct selling) Field engineers, logistics Supervisors (관리감독자)
Regular 6 hours per half-year 6 hours per half-year 12 hours per half-year 16 hours per year
On hiring 8 hours 8 hours 8 hours 8 hours
On change of job content 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours
Special (hazardous work) Not applicable Not applicable 16 hours where the work is listed As applicable
 
Short-term staff are treated separately: day workers and fixed-term workers on contracts of one week or less receive 1 hour on hiring and 1 hour on a change of job content; fixed-term workers on contracts of more than one week and up to one month receive 4 hours on hiring. Special training for these populations is 2 hours, and 2 hours also applies where the work is short-term or intermittent. Where a worker outside those categories performs listed hazardous work, the 16 hours must include at least 4 hours before the work begins, with the remaining 12 divisible over three months.

The cycle is half-yearly, not annual.

Regular training runs per half-year. An entity that runs one comprehensive session in January has satisfied the first half and has nothing on the record for the second. This is the subject of our 14 August article and is the single most common finding in this area.

The half-yearly figures are annual totals in disguise, and the wrong numbers are everywhere.

The 2023 amendment moved the cycle from quarterly to half-yearly and doubled the per-cycle hours so the annual total held. A large number of guides published or updated in 2026 still print the pre-2023 quarterly figures, and at least one prints "3 hours per half-year" which is neither the old rule nor the new one, and halves the annual total. If your Korean provider's proposal says 3 hours, ask which version of Appendix 4 they are working from.

Sales staff sit in the 6-hour row, not the 12-hour row but only if they sell directly.

The reduced figure attaches to workers directly engaged in sales work. Company A's inside sales team plausibly qualifies; its field service engineers plainly do not, and neither do the logistics staff. Sorting the population correctly is worth doing once, in writing, because it determines the hours for everyone.

Non-compliance.

Failure to deliver regular, new-hire or job-change training is an administrative fine assessed per worker in the training population: KRW 100,000 for a first offence, KRW 200,000 for a second, KRW 500,000 for a third or subsequent. At Company A's headcount, a missed half-year across the whole workforce is a meaningful number rather than a nuisance.

👥 Question four: who is in the population?

Company A's 74 is not the number that matters. Three adjustments apply, and they move in different directions.
Dispatched workers count toward the user company, not the agency. Under Article 35 of the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, the using employer is treated as the employer under the Occupational Safety and Health Act in respect of the dispatched work. Company A's two reception and administrative staff are therefore Company A's training population, not the agency's a point that surprises entities accustomed to jurisdictions where the agency retains the obligation.
Contractor personnel do not count toward the number, but they do not disappear either. The cleaning crew and the maintenance contractors are their own employers' training population. What Company A owes as principal employer is different in kind: providing space and materials to support the contractor's delivery of Articles 29(1) to (3) training, and confirming that the contractor has delivered special training under Article 29(3). That is a verification duty, and verification duties are evidenced or they are not performed. A signed confirmation from each contractor at contract start and annually thereafter is cheap and is the whole of the file.

💻 Question five: can the group's e-learning count?

This is the question global EHS teams care about most, and the answer has a sharp edge in it.
Korean regulation recognises five delivery methods for worker safety and health training: classroom, on-site, internet distance learning, non-face-to-face live instruction, and correspondence (the last limited to supervisors' regular training). The current governing notice is Ministry of Employment and Labor Notice No. 2025-77, amended 27 November 2025.
Delivery method Recognised What Company A would need
Classroom (집체) Yes Venue, qualified instructor, attendance record
On-site (현장) Yes Delivered at the work location
Non-face-to-face live (비대면 실시간) Yes — counts for the full hours Real-time video instruction; identity check before start; 100% attendance, no examination
Internet distance learning (인터넷 원격) Yes, via a registered institution Per-module assessment; re-enrolment after three failed attempts; progress tracking
Correspondence (우편통신) Supervisors' regular training only Caps at 50% of supervisor hours; the balance must be classroom or live video
 
The good news is real. Live virtual instruction is a recognised method in its own right and is credited for the full duration. For a multinational, that means a regional EHS specialist can deliver Korean training from Singapore or Frankfurt over video and have it count provided the content, the instructor and the records meet the Korean requirements. It also means the 50% classroom minimum for supervisor training can be met by video rather than by flying someone in.
The caution is equally real. Training delivered through an institution that is not on the Ministry's registered list is not recognised as training performed. The registered institution list is published by the Ministry; the most recent edition we located is dated 4 December 2025, and the same publication carries a warning about entities falsely presenting themselves as registered institutions the 2026 amendment introduced a fine of up to KRW 5 million for doing so.
The content problem is separate from the delivery problem, and it is the one that gets overlooked. Korean regular training has prescribed content, and the prescribed content was expanded by an amendment effective 30 May 2025 to include fire and explosion evacuation procedures and the prevention of and emergency response to heat and cold-related health effects. A group module built to an ISO 45001 framework will cover hazard reporting, incident escalation and behavioural safety competently, and will not cover Korean evacuation requirements or a Korean heatwave protocol at all. The gap is not one of quality.

✅ Resolving the case

Company A's position, stated plainly:
It is not exempt, on two independent grounds. It owes regular training every half-year 6 hours to office and direct sales staff, 12 hours to field engineers and logistics staff plus 8 hours on hiring, 2 hours on a change of job content, and 16 hours annually to anyone holding supervisor status. Its two dispatched workers are its population. Its contractors are not, but their special training must be verified and the verification kept. Its ISO 45001 system and its January LMS module are worth having and do not discharge any of this.
The workable structure is not a replacement of the global programme. It is a Korean layer beneath it: two half-yearly sessions delivered in Korean, by live video from the region or by a registered local provider, covering the prescribed Korean content including the 2025 additions, with the population split correctly between the 6-hour and 12-hour rows, records kept locally, and the group module retained as supplementary content that is not counted toward statutory hours.

💬 How EAP supports employees and HR

There is a version of this article that ends at the compliance table, and for an entity like Company A it would miss what the training regime is actually reaching for.
Korea expanded the prescribed content of regular training in 2025 to include, among other things, emergency response to heat and cold-related health effects a recognition that the harm safety training addresses is not confined to machinery. The same logic has been running through international standards for some years. ISO 45003 places psychosocial risk squarely within the occupational health and safety management system rather than beside it, which means the framework carrying Company A's Korean training obligations is the same framework expected to carry how work is designed, how workload is set, and how managers behave. The World Health Organization's guidance on mental health at work is explicit that organisational conditions, not individual resilience, drive outcomes, and identifies manager training as a distinct intervention alongside worker-directed support.
For an entity like Company A the exposure is easy to see once named. Eight field engineers work alone at customer sites, on someone else's premises, with the day's difficulties invisible to the Seoul office. Thirty-nine people carry revenue targets. A managing director reports into a regional structure in another time zone. None of that appears in a safety training curriculum, and all of it determines whether the training changes anything.
Under the EAPA Core Technology, confidential problem identification and assessment, referral, and consultation with managers and organisations on employee and organisational issues are core employee assistance functions. In practice that gives an entity three things the training programme cannot supply on its own: a confidential route in Korean and English that does not run through the line manager, which matters most for the people who work away from the office; a place for a supervisor to take a concern before it becomes an incident report; and aggregate, non-identifying insight into where pressure is concentrating, which is the input a half-yearly training cycle needs if the sessions are to be about the entity's real conditions rather than a generic deck.
Statutory training establishes what workers must be told. It does not establish whether anyone will say anything back. That gap is where employee assistance does its work.

🔗 Related guides

Half-Year Training Cycles: Why Annual Scheduling Fails Korean OSHA Compliance (EN)
Occupational Safety and Health Training in Korea: Employer Requirements by Job Type (EN)
산업안전보건교육 대상·시간·온라인 총정리 (KR)

❓ FAQ

Q1. Our Korean entity is a liaison office with six staff, all administrative, reporting to the regional head office. Are we exempt?

Possibly, but not for the reason you expect, and the analysis is not the same as for a subsidiary. Where staff perform only management-support work and no part of a direct industrial activity, the office-only provision is at least in play. What is unresolved is whether a liaison office is an employer in its own right for these purposes and how its staff are attributed where they are formally employed by the overseas parent a question that also affects registration, payroll and headcount thresholds. Have the specific structure reviewed rather than inferring the answer from the subsidiary rule.

Q2. We are a software subsidiary. We understood we were exempt from safety training entirely.

Partly right, and the part you have wrong is the part that carries a fine. Software publishing and computer programming, systems integration and management are listed industries, and listed industries are excluded from Articles 29 and 30 regular, new-hire and job-change training. Special training under Article 29(3) is not excluded. If any of your work is listed hazardous work, that duty stands. And the rest of the Act the management structure provisions, risk assessment, the employer's general duty applies to you as it does to anyone else.

Q3. Does our ISO 45001 certification reduce any of this?

No, and it is worth being precise about why. Certification evidences a management system; the Korean duty is a delivery duty with prescribed hours, prescribed content, prescribed methods and a per-worker fine. There is no provision under which certification substitutes for hours. What certification genuinely does is make the Korean layer cheaper to build the governance, the record discipline and the training infrastructure already exist, and what is needed is a Korean-content, Korean-language, half-yearly delivery running inside it.

👉 Next step

Run Company A's five questions against your own Korean entity, in order, and write the answers down.

One.

List every employee who is not performing management-support work field, service, warehouse, showroom, driver, laboratory. If the list is not empty, the office-only exemption is closed. If it is empty, check whether your revenue-generating staff are performing the entity's main activity, because that closes it too.

Two.

Check your Korean industry classification against the listed-industry exemption. If it is not there, the full duty applies. If it is, remember that special training survives.

Three.

Split your population into the 6-hour and 12-hour rows and count the supervisors. Then check whether you have two half-yearly cycles on the record for this year, or one annual event.

Four.

Add your dispatched workers to your own population, and collect a written confirmation from each contractor that it has delivered the special training its workers require.

Five.

Look at what your group module actually contains, and ask whether a Korean inspector reading it would find Korean evacuation procedures and Korean heat and cold protocols in it. If not, the module is supplementary, and your statutory hours need a Korean delivery beneath it.
Where the answer to any of these is uncertain, resolve it before the second half-year closes rather than after.
If your organization needs a coordinated approach to employee mental health, manager capability, and confidential support for staff working away from the main office, contact Nudge EAP to discuss an implementation model suited to your workforce.

📎 NOTE:

This article is intended for general informational purposes only. Specific legal, medical, clinical, or employment-related matters may require review by an appropriately qualified professional. Exemption analysis under Appendix 1 of the Enforcement Decree turns on entity classification and actual job content, and any decision not to deliver statutory training should be confirmed with qualified Korean counsel before it is acted on.

📚 Sources

8. 법무법인(유한) 율촌, 「사무직 사업장에 대한 판단기준과 안전 관리 방안에 대하여」
https://www.yulchon.com/ko/resources/publications/legal-update-view/36101/page.do
18. 고용노동부, 「안전보건교육규정」(고용노동부고시 제2025-77호, 2025. 11. 27. 개정)
https://www.moel.go.kr/info/lawinfo/instruction/view.do?bbs_seq=20251101262
19. 고용노동부, 「근로자 안전보건교육기관·직무교육기관 명단」('25. 12. 4. 기준)
https://www.moel.go.kr/info/publict/publictDataView.do?bbs_seq=20251200317
24. World Health Organization, Guidelines on Mental Health at Work (2022)
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052
25. World Health Organization, Mental health at work fact sheet
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-at-work
댓글5
  • 익명4
    BEST
    Should companies document the office-only exemption analysis even when they ultimately decide training is required? It seems useful to keep the reasoning in case headquarters asks why Korea needs a separate layer.
  • 익명3
    The distinction between office support staff and revenue-generating sales staff was especially helpful. Many foreign-invested sales subsidiaries would probably assume they are exempt without checking this.
  • 익명2
    This case study was useful because it shows why “office-only” cannot be judged simply by whether employees sit at desks. The actual business activity and job content matter.
  • 익명1
    The LMS point is important. A global safety module may be good quality, but it does not automatically satisfy Korean statutory hours, content, delivery method, and record requirements.