Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on the “Existence of Dismissal (Entrusted Center Director)” (Unfair Dismissal 480)
- Date2026/05/25 04:08
- Read 78
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (entrusted center director).”
Decision Committee: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae26 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant never entered into an employment contract with the employer in relation to the entrusted operation, and that, even after the entrusted operation agreement was terminated, the applicant’s employment was succeeded by the Daegu Health College Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation and the applicant continued to hold the position of center director. Accordingly, no dismissal of the applicant exists.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case was handled by the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission and concerned the legal relationship between the employer, who operated a center under an entrusted operation structure, and the applicant, who worked as the center director. Even after the entrusted operation agreement was terminated, the applicant’s employment was succeeded by the Daegu Health College Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, and the applicant continued to hold the title of center director. There was no dispute between the parties on these points.
The applicant filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the employer’s failure to renew the entrusted operation agreement was in substance a measure to dismiss the applicant, and that, although the title of center director was maintained, the exclusion from the approval (payment) line constituted a de facto unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where there are disadvantageous personnel measures such as the termination of an entrusted operation agreement and exclusion from the approval line, it can be deemed that a “dismissal” of the applicant exists, and further, whether such measures can be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the applicant had never directly entered into an employment contract with the employer in relation to the entrusted operation, that even after the termination of the entrusted operation agreement the applicant’s employment was succeeded by the Daegu Health College Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation and the applicant continued to hold the position of center director, and that both parties did not dispute these facts regarding succession of employment and maintenance of status.
On this basis, the panel found that, in this case, there was no act of terminating the employment relationship—i.e., no dismissal—vis-à-vis the applicant.
Furthermore, as to the applicant’s assertion that the employer’s failure to renew the entrusted operation agreement was an indirect measure to dismiss the applicant, the panel held that there was insufficient objective evidence to support this claim. It also found that, even if there had been exclusion from the approval line while the applicant’s status as center director was maintained, such exclusion alone could not readily be regarded, under social norms, as an expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship by way of dismissal.
Accordingly, the panel held that, as no dismissal disposition exists in this case, it does not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to clearly understand that, for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission to be established, there must actually be a “termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral intent,” that is, a dismissal. Even where there are various disadvantages such as changes to the entrusted operation agreement, exclusion from the approval line, or reduction of duties, for such measures to be recognized as a dismissal, it must be objectively proven that the employment relationship has been severed or that there are exclusion/expulsion effects equivalent to such severance.
In particular, those working within multi-layered employment structures—such as entrusted operation arrangements, industry-academic cooperation foundations, or foundations—should, on a routine basis, check and organize, through contracts, pay slips, and personnel documents, “with whom they have entered into an employment contract” and “who actually pays their wages and exercises personnel authority.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly document the conclusion, renewal, and termination of entrusted operation agreements, and to structure the relationship so that there is no confusion as to whether personnel belonging to the entrusted entity are in a direct employment relationship with the employer or are simply personnel of the entrusted institution. When an entrusted operation agreement is not renewed, objective business needs and procedures should be documented so that it does not appear that a particular employee is being singled out, thereby facilitating defense in future proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
In addition, measures such as exclusion from the approval line, reduction of duties, or maintaining title while stripping substantive authority may later give rise to allegations of “de facto dismissal” or abuse of personnel authority. Employers should therefore prepare in advance materials that can objectively explain the necessity, background, and business-related rationality of such measures.
Finally, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, it is advisable to have the structure of entrusted operations, contract drafting, and overall HR/labor management reviewed in advance with the advice of a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&. This helps enhance predictability for both companies and employees not only in unfair dismissal cases, but also in various Labor Relations Commission matters such as collective redundancies and disputes over the expectation of contract renewal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant never entered into an employment contract with the employer in relation to the entrusted operation, and that, even after the entrusted operation agreement was terminated, the applicant’s employment was succeeded by the Daegu Health College Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation and the applicant continued to hold the position of center director. Accordingly, no dismissal of the applicant exists. The applicant, however, argues that the employer’s failure to renew the entrusted operation agreement was a measure intended to dismiss the applicant, and that, although the applicant retains the position of center director, exclusion from the approval line constitutes a de facto dismissal. Nevertheless, as no objective evidence can be found to support this assertion, and leaving aside the separate question of the illegality of the employer’s allegedly unfair work instructions, it is difficult to regard the situation as constituting unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant never entered into an employment contract with the employer in relation to the entrusted operation, and that, even after the entrusted operation agreement was terminated, the applicant’s employment was succeeded by the Daegu Health College Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation and the applicant continued to hold the position of center director. Accordingly, no dismissal of the applicant exists. The applicant, however, argues that the employer’s failure to renew the entrusted operation agreement was a measure intended to dismiss the applicant, and that, although the applicant retains the position of center director, exclusion from the approval line constitutes a de facto dismissal. Nevertheless, as no objective evidence can be found to support this assertion, and leaving aside the separate question of the illegality of the employer’s allegedly unfair work instructions, it is difficult to regard the situation as constituting unfair dismissal. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text Message)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (entrusted center director), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text Message)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (entrusted center director) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Entrusted Center Director).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (entrusted center director).”
Decision Committee: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae26 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant never entered into an employment contract with the employer in relation to the entrusted operation, and that, even after the entrusted operation agreement was terminated, the applicant’s employment was succeeded by the Daegu Health College Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation and the applicant continued to hold the position of center director. Accordingly, no dismissal of the applicant exists.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case was handled by the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission and concerned the legal relationship between the employer, who operated a center under an entrusted operation structure, and the applicant, who worked as the center director. Even after the entrusted operation agreement was terminated, the applicant’s employment was succeeded by the Daegu Health College Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, and the applicant continued to hold the title of center director. There was no dispute between the parties on these points.
The applicant filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that the employer’s failure to renew the entrusted operation agreement was in substance a measure to dismiss the applicant, and that, although the title of center director was maintained, the exclusion from the approval (payment) line constituted a de facto unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where there are disadvantageous personnel measures such as the termination of an entrusted operation agreement and exclusion from the approval line, it can be deemed that a “dismissal” of the applicant exists, and further, whether such measures can be the subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the applicant had never directly entered into an employment contract with the employer in relation to the entrusted operation, that even after the termination of the entrusted operation agreement the applicant’s employment was succeeded by the Daegu Health College Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation and the applicant continued to hold the position of center director, and that both parties did not dispute these facts regarding succession of employment and maintenance of status.
On this basis, the panel found that, in this case, there was no act of terminating the employment relationship—i.e., no dismissal—vis-à-vis the applicant.
Furthermore, as to the applicant’s assertion that the employer’s failure to renew the entrusted operation agreement was an indirect measure to dismiss the applicant, the panel held that there was insufficient objective evidence to support this claim. It also found that, even if there had been exclusion from the approval line while the applicant’s status as center director was maintained, such exclusion alone could not readily be regarded, under social norms, as an expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship by way of dismissal.
Accordingly, the panel held that, as no dismissal disposition exists in this case, it does not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to clearly understand that, for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission to be established, there must actually be a “termination of the employment relationship by the employer’s unilateral intent,” that is, a dismissal. Even where there are various disadvantages such as changes to the entrusted operation agreement, exclusion from the approval line, or reduction of duties, for such measures to be recognized as a dismissal, it must be objectively proven that the employment relationship has been severed or that there are exclusion/expulsion effects equivalent to such severance.
In particular, those working within multi-layered employment structures—such as entrusted operation arrangements, industry-academic cooperation foundations, or foundations—should, on a routine basis, check and organize, through contracts, pay slips, and personnel documents, “with whom they have entered into an employment contract” and “who actually pays their wages and exercises personnel authority.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly document the conclusion, renewal, and termination of entrusted operation agreements, and to structure the relationship so that there is no confusion as to whether personnel belonging to the entrusted entity are in a direct employment relationship with the employer or are simply personnel of the entrusted institution. When an entrusted operation agreement is not renewed, objective business needs and procedures should be documented so that it does not appear that a particular employee is being singled out, thereby facilitating defense in future proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
In addition, measures such as exclusion from the approval line, reduction of duties, or maintaining title while stripping substantive authority may later give rise to allegations of “de facto dismissal” or abuse of personnel authority. Employers should therefore prepare in advance materials that can objectively explain the necessity, background, and business-related rationality of such measures.
Finally, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, it is advisable to have the structure of entrusted operations, contract drafting, and overall HR/labor management reviewed in advance with the advice of a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&. This helps enhance predictability for both companies and employees not only in unfair dismissal cases, but also in various Labor Relations Commission matters such as collective redundancies and disputes over the expectation of contract renewal.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant never entered into an employment contract with the employer in relation to the entrusted operation, and that, even after the entrusted operation agreement was terminated, the applicant’s employment was succeeded by the Daegu Health College Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation and the applicant continued to hold the position of center director. Accordingly, no dismissal of the applicant exists. The applicant, however, argues that the employer’s failure to renew the entrusted operation agreement was a measure intended to dismiss the applicant, and that, although the applicant retains the position of center director, exclusion from the approval line constitutes a de facto dismissal. Nevertheless, as no objective evidence can be found to support this assertion, and leaving aside the separate question of the illegality of the employer’s allegedly unfair work instructions, it is difficult to regard the situation as constituting unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant never entered into an employment contract with the employer in relation to the entrusted operation, and that, even after the entrusted operation agreement was terminated, the applicant’s employment was succeeded by the Daegu Health College Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation and the applicant continued to hold the position of center director. Accordingly, no dismissal of the applicant exists. The applicant, however, argues that the employer’s failure to renew the entrusted operation agreement was a measure intended to dismiss the applicant, and that, although the applicant retains the position of center director, exclusion from the approval line constitutes a de facto dismissal. Nevertheless, as no objective evidence can be found to support this assertion, and leaving aside the separate question of the illegality of the employer’s allegedly unfair work instructions, it is difficult to regard the situation as constituting unfair dismissal. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text Message)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (entrusted center director), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Notification by Text Message)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (entrusted center director) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to the Existence of Dismissal (Entrusted Center Director).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
