Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Employee Status (Director of Overseas Parent Company)” (Unfair Dismissal 168)
- Date2026/02/01 04:13
- Read 237
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employee status (director of overseas parent company).”
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 210 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The applicant held the title of “director” at the company but argued that, in substance, he was an employee under the Labor Standards Act who performed work under the employer’s specific direction and supervision. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Commission found that the applicant, as an officer of the company (employer), appears to have handled affairs delegated by the parent company, and that it is difficult to recognize him as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the applicant, who worked as a “director” at a subsidiary of an overseas parent company, was in effect notified of dismissal by the company. He then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that he was only nominally an officer and that in substance he qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the applicant had employee status by comprehensively reviewing the contents of the employment contract concluded with the parent company, the actual structure of work direction and supervision, and his remuneration and treatment, and then proceeded to review whether the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether a person who directly concluded an executive contract with an overseas parent company, worked as a “director” at the domestic corporation, and received high remuneration and executive-level treatment falls within the scope of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act who provides labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the applicant’s contractual counterparty was an executive of the overseas parent company and that his position within the company was expressly stated as “officer”; that the work direction and supervision structure required him to report directly to an executive of the parent company rather than to the representative director of the domestic corporation; that key personnel authority—such as execution and renewal of the employment contract, discussions on transfer to another overseas group company, and notice of non-renewal (termination) of the contract—was consistently exercised by an executive of the parent company; and that, unlike ordinary employees, the applicant was not subject to a seniority-based pay system and received high annual remuneration and independent, executive-level treatment such as a private office, hotel suite, and restaurant meals.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the applicant was closer to a company officer handling affairs delegated by the parent company than to an employee under the Labor Standards Act providing labor in a subordinate relationship to the domestic company.
Since the applicant’s employee status was not recognized, the dismissal could not fall within the scope of “unfair dismissal” subject to remedy under the Labor Standards Act, and the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if you hold an officer title, there may be room to recognize employee status if, in reality, you work under the employer’s specific direction and supervision, are bound by fixed working hours and workplace, and are paid in a manner similar to ordinary employees, such as under a seniority- or performance-based pay system. Conversely, as in this case, where independence and discretion as an officer are strongly reflected in the identity of the contractual counterparty, the holder of personnel authority, the reporting structure, and the level and nature of remuneration and benefits, it may be difficult to have employee status recognized in unfair dismissal remedy proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
One of the types of disputes that companies and Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounter in practice is unfair dismissal disputes involving personnel whose status on the boundary between “officer” and “employee” is ambiguous. When planning personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals or termination of executive contracts, it is important to design and manage not only job titles but also the identity of the contractual counterparty, the structure of direction and supervision, the person exercising personnel authority, and the remuneration system and benefits so that the factors relevant to determining employee status are consistent between documentation and actual operation.
This decision by the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates that, at the stage of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, whether the applicant is an “employee under the Labor Standards Act” functions as a threshold requirement, and that, particularly for those holding officer/director positions, the structure of the contract and the substantive direction and supervision relationship can be decisive to the outcome.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The applicant held the title of “director” at the company but argued that, in substance, he was an employee under the Labor Standards Act who performed work under the employer’s specific direction and supervision. However, in light of the following circumstances, the applicant appears to have handled affairs delegated by the parent company as an officer of the company (employer), and it is difficult to recognize him as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer.
① In the employment contract concluded between the applicant and an executive of the overseas parent company, his position within the company is stated as “officer,” and it is specified that he is to report directly to an executive of the parent company regarding work matters. In practice as well, he performed his duties under the direction and supervision of an executive of the parent company, and his interactions with the company’s representative director appear to have been limited to mutual consultation and coordination on specific matters, such as how to handle certain tasks and allocate roles between departments.
② All major personnel matters—such as the conclusion and renewal of the applicant’s employment contract, discussions on his transfer to another overseas group company, and notice of non-renewal (termination) of the contract—were handled by an executive of the parent company, and there is no indication that the company’s representative director was involved.
③ It is also confirmed that the applicant directly discussed company-wide issues, such as whether to maintain business operations at the workplace, with an executive of the parent company.
④ Unlike ordinary employees, the applicant was not subject to a seniority-based pay table and received high remuneration, as well as treatment clearly distinct from that of ordinary employees, such as being provided with a private office, hotel suite, and restaurant meals.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The applicant held the title of “director” at the company but argued that, in substance, he was an employee under the Labor Standards Act who performed work under the employer’s specific direction and supervision. However, in light of the following circumstances, the applicant appears to have handled affairs delegated by the parent company as an officer of the company (employer), and it is difficult to recognize him as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer.
① In the employment contract concluded between the applicant and an executive of the overseas parent company, his position within the company is stated as “officer,” and it is specified that he is to report directly to an executive of the parent company regarding work matters. In practice as well, he performed his duties under the direction and supervision of an executive of the parent company, and his interactions with the company’s representative director appear to have been limited to mutual consultation and coordination on specific matters, such as how to handle certain tasks and allocate roles between departments.
② All major personnel matters—such as the conclusion and renewal of the applicant’s employment contract, discussions on his transfer to another overseas group company, and notice of non-renewal (termination) of the contract—were handled by an executive of the parent company, and there is no indication that the company’s representative director was involved.
③ It is also confirmed that the applicant directly discussed company-wide issues, such as whether to maintain business operations at the workplace, with an executive of the parent company.
④ Unlike ordinary employees, the applicant was not subject to a seniority-based pay table and received high remuneration, as well as treatment clearly distinct from that of ordinary employees, such as being provided with a private office, hotel suite, and restaurant meals. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Text Message Notice to Outsourced Team Leader)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (director of overseas parent company), others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Automatic Dismissal (Falsification of Home-Visit Nursing Records)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employee status (director of overseas parent company) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Director of Overseas Parent Company).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employee status (director of overseas parent company).”
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 210 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The applicant held the title of “director” at the company but argued that, in substance, he was an employee under the Labor Standards Act who performed work under the employer’s specific direction and supervision. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Commission found that the applicant, as an officer of the company (employer), appears to have handled affairs delegated by the parent company, and that it is difficult to recognize him as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the applicant, who worked as a “director” at a subsidiary of an overseas parent company, was in effect notified of dismissal by the company. He then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, asserting that he was only nominally an officer and that in substance he qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the applicant had employee status by comprehensively reviewing the contents of the employment contract concluded with the parent company, the actual structure of work direction and supervision, and his remuneration and treatment, and then proceeded to review whether the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether a person who directly concluded an executive contract with an overseas parent company, worked as a “director” at the domestic corporation, and received high remuneration and executive-level treatment falls within the scope of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act who provides labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the applicant’s contractual counterparty was an executive of the overseas parent company and that his position within the company was expressly stated as “officer”; that the work direction and supervision structure required him to report directly to an executive of the parent company rather than to the representative director of the domestic corporation; that key personnel authority—such as execution and renewal of the employment contract, discussions on transfer to another overseas group company, and notice of non-renewal (termination) of the contract—was consistently exercised by an executive of the parent company; and that, unlike ordinary employees, the applicant was not subject to a seniority-based pay system and received high annual remuneration and independent, executive-level treatment such as a private office, hotel suite, and restaurant meals.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the applicant was closer to a company officer handling affairs delegated by the parent company than to an employee under the Labor Standards Act providing labor in a subordinate relationship to the domestic company.
Since the applicant’s employee status was not recognized, the dismissal could not fall within the scope of “unfair dismissal” subject to remedy under the Labor Standards Act, and the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if you hold an officer title, there may be room to recognize employee status if, in reality, you work under the employer’s specific direction and supervision, are bound by fixed working hours and workplace, and are paid in a manner similar to ordinary employees, such as under a seniority- or performance-based pay system. Conversely, as in this case, where independence and discretion as an officer are strongly reflected in the identity of the contractual counterparty, the holder of personnel authority, the reporting structure, and the level and nature of remuneration and benefits, it may be difficult to have employee status recognized in unfair dismissal remedy proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
One of the types of disputes that companies and Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounter in practice is unfair dismissal disputes involving personnel whose status on the boundary between “officer” and “employee” is ambiguous. When planning personnel measures such as redundancy dismissals or termination of executive contracts, it is important to design and manage not only job titles but also the identity of the contractual counterparty, the structure of direction and supervision, the person exercising personnel authority, and the remuneration system and benefits so that the factors relevant to determining employee status are consistent between documentation and actual operation.
This decision by the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates that, at the stage of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, whether the applicant is an “employee under the Labor Standards Act” functions as a threshold requirement, and that, particularly for those holding officer/director positions, the structure of the contract and the substantive direction and supervision relationship can be decisive to the outcome.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The applicant held the title of “director” at the company but argued that, in substance, he was an employee under the Labor Standards Act who performed work under the employer’s specific direction and supervision. However, in light of the following circumstances, the applicant appears to have handled affairs delegated by the parent company as an officer of the company (employer), and it is difficult to recognize him as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer.
① In the employment contract concluded between the applicant and an executive of the overseas parent company, his position within the company is stated as “officer,” and it is specified that he is to report directly to an executive of the parent company regarding work matters. In practice as well, he performed his duties under the direction and supervision of an executive of the parent company, and his interactions with the company’s representative director appear to have been limited to mutual consultation and coordination on specific matters, such as how to handle certain tasks and allocate roles between departments.
② All major personnel matters—such as the conclusion and renewal of the applicant’s employment contract, discussions on his transfer to another overseas group company, and notice of non-renewal (termination) of the contract—were handled by an executive of the parent company, and there is no indication that the company’s representative director was involved.
③ It is also confirmed that the applicant directly discussed company-wide issues, such as whether to maintain business operations at the workplace, with an executive of the parent company.
④ Unlike ordinary employees, the applicant was not subject to a seniority-based pay table and received high remuneration, as well as treatment clearly distinct from that of ordinary employees, such as being provided with a private office, hotel suite, and restaurant meals.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The applicant held the title of “director” at the company but argued that, in substance, he was an employee under the Labor Standards Act who performed work under the employer’s specific direction and supervision. However, in light of the following circumstances, the applicant appears to have handled affairs delegated by the parent company as an officer of the company (employer), and it is difficult to recognize him as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer.
① In the employment contract concluded between the applicant and an executive of the overseas parent company, his position within the company is stated as “officer,” and it is specified that he is to report directly to an executive of the parent company regarding work matters. In practice as well, he performed his duties under the direction and supervision of an executive of the parent company, and his interactions with the company’s representative director appear to have been limited to mutual consultation and coordination on specific matters, such as how to handle certain tasks and allocate roles between departments.
② All major personnel matters—such as the conclusion and renewal of the applicant’s employment contract, discussions on his transfer to another overseas group company, and notice of non-renewal (termination) of the contract—were handled by an executive of the parent company, and there is no indication that the company’s representative director was involved.
③ It is also confirmed that the applicant directly discussed company-wide issues, such as whether to maintain business operations at the workplace, with an executive of the parent company.
④ Unlike ordinary employees, the applicant was not subject to a seniority-based pay table and received high remuneration, as well as treatment clearly distinct from that of ordinary employees, such as being provided with a private office, hotel suite, and restaurant meals. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Text Message Notice to Outsourced Team Leader)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (director of overseas parent company), others, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Automatic Dismissal (Falsification of Home-Visit Nursing Records)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employee status (director of overseas parent company) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Director of Overseas Parent Company).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
