Gochang County Rejects NHRC Recommendation on Age Limit for Cultural Tourism Commentators: A Controversial Decision in South Korea’s Tourism Industry

Published on November 27, 2025

Gochang County in North Jeolla Province has decided to reject a recommendation from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regarding the retirement age of cultural tourism commentators, a recent development that has sparked discussions within South Korea’s tourism industry. Based on human rights concerns, the NHRC recommended that the age restriction that keeps cultural tourism commentators from serving past the age of 71 be lifted. In spite of this, Gochang County chose not to follow the advice, a move that has sparked serious questions about equity, discrimination, and the participation of seasoned employees in South Korea’s thriving tourism sector.

The Role of Cultural Tourism Commentators

Cultural tourism commentators play an essential role in South Korea’s tourism industry by providing valuable insights into the region’s history, culture, and attractions to visitors. These commentators are responsible for guiding tourists through various historical and cultural sites, offering detailed explanations and answering questions about the local heritage. Their expertise is critical to enhancing the tourist experience, as they impart knowledge that helps visitors appreciate the rich cultural tapestry of regions like Gochang County.

Over the years, cultural tourism commentators in South Korea have accumulated a wealth of knowledge through years of study, training, and hands-on experience. This expertise is often honed over decades, with many commentators working well into their senior years. However, despite the wealth of experience that older commentators bring to the table, the county set an age limit of 71 for these roles, which has now become the centre of controversy.

Petition Filed by Experienced Commentators

The controversy began when three experienced cultural tourism commentators from Gochang County, each with over seven, 10, and 20 years of service, filed a petition against the retirement age policy. These individuals, who had contributed significantly to the tourism sector, were informed that their services would no longer be needed once they reached the age of 71. The decision to retire them based purely on age sparked a wave of criticism, especially considering the value of their extensive experience and the fact that many other regions across the world continue to employ older commentators with great success.

The petitioners argued that their age should not be a determining factor in their ability to continue working. They pointed out that their accumulated knowledge and years of service could actually enhance the quality of their work and benefit tourists. They felt that they were being unfairly discriminated against simply because of their age, which led them to seek intervention from the NHRC.

NHRC’s Response to Gochang County’s Age Limit

In response to the petition, the NHRC conducted an evaluation and concluded that restricting the employment of cultural tourism commentators based on age is an unreasonable practice. The NHRC argued that the core competencies required for the role—such as knowledge of history and culture, communication skills, and the ability to engage with tourists—are not necessarily diminished with age. On the contrary, the NHRC noted that experienced commentators bring a depth of knowledge and an ability to provide richer, more insightful commentary to visitors, qualities that are often gained over many years of professional practice.

The NHRC also dismissed the argument made by Gochang County that older commentators might not be physically capable of guiding tourists on tours, which often require walking for extended periods. The commission referenced other regions where commentators well into their 70s and even 80s continue to perform their duties effectively, demonstrating that age alone is not an accurate indicator of a person’s ability to work.

Instead of implementing an arbitrary age limit, the NHRC recommended that Gochang County focus on evaluating commentators based on their skills and performance. This could include assessments of their knowledge, ability to engage with tourists, and their overall physical capability to carry out the job. In line with this suggestion, the NHRC argued that the current system of evaluating commentators already provides a fair mechanism to determine whether they are fit to continue in their roles, without the need for an age-based restriction.

Gochang County’s Defiant Response

Despite the NHRC’s recommendations, Gochang County has firmly rejected the suggestion to lift the age limit for cultural tourism commentators. The county argued that the age limit was necessary to maintain fairness and ensure the sustainability of the programme. Gochang officials explained that the decision to set a retirement age was based on a combination of factors, including the physical demands of the job, the need for generational change within the workforce, and the need to ensure fairness among the commentators.

Officials from Gochang County also pointed out that the age limit was put in place after considering the unique characteristics of the region’s tourist sites, many of which require commentators to walk long distances with groups of tourists. While acknowledging that the role of a cultural tourism commentator is vital, the county argued that the physical demands of the job could be challenging for older individuals. Therefore, the age limit was considered a necessary measure to maintain a balance between experience and physical capability.

Furthermore, Gochang County emphasised that the age limit was intended to ensure the long-term sustainability of the programme by encouraging the inclusion of younger commentators who could bring fresh perspectives and energy to the tourism sector.

NHRC’s Previous Interventions and Regional Reactions

The NHRC’s recommendation to remove age limits for cultural tourism commentators is not the first of its kind. Since 2010, the commission has made similar recommendations to several other local governments across South Korea, and in each case, the recommendations were accepted. However, Gochang County remains an outlier in this respect, as it has chosen to reject the NHRC’s advice.

The NHRC’s stance on this issue has drawn praise from human rights groups and advocates for older workers, who argue that age-based discrimination is a violation of fundamental rights. They believe that older workers, particularly those with decades of experience, should not be excluded from the workforce simply because of their age. Such practices, they argue, undermine the principles of equality and fairness that underpin South Korea’s labour laws.

The Larger Debate: Age Discrimination in South Korea’s Workforce

The controversy surrounding Gochang County’s decision has brought the issue of age discrimination in South Korea’s workforce into the spotlight. South Korea, like many other countries, faces a rapidly ageing population, which has prompted a wider conversation about how society treats older workers. As the nation’s elderly population continues to grow, the issue of whether older individuals should be forced into retirement based on age is becoming increasingly contentious.

While there is a growing recognition of the need for policies that promote the inclusion of older workers, there are still significant barriers to achieving this goal. Many sectors, particularly those that rely on physical labour or customer-facing roles, continue to uphold age limits or discourage older workers from continuing in their jobs. The Gochang County case serves as a stark reminder of these ongoing challenges.

A Call for Fairness and Inclusion

The conflict between age-based policies and the rights of older workers in South Korea is exemplified by Gochang County’s decision to reject the NHRC’s recommendation. The NHRC’s intervention has raised significant questions regarding the role of experience and competence in determining the suitability of workers for their roles, despite the county’s insistence that its age limit is required for fairness and sustainability. The Gochang County case will probably be a crucial point of reference in the ongoing discussion about age discrimination in South Korea’s workforce.