Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Non-Existence of Employee Status (Standing)” (Unfair Dismissal 107)
- Date2026/01/13 21:07
- Read 223
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of employee status (standing).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Unfair342 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.18 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: As there was no objective evidence that the workers in this case were employees under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer at the workplace in question and received wages in return, they were found not to have standing as applicants to file for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the applicants filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that they had been unfairly dismissed by the employer. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, first raised the issue of the applicants’ employee status and standing. Focusing on whether the applicants were employees under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the employer at the workplace in question in a subordinate relationship and received wages in return, the Commission ultimately dismissed the application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was whether “the applicants were employees under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor under the direction and supervision of the employer for the purpose of receiving wages, and therefore had standing to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.”
The panel in this case noted that there was no evidence that the employer had specifically determined and directed the content and method of the applicants’ work, that there were no circumstances confirming that the employer uniformly designated working hours and workplace and required compliance, and that there was a lack of objective evidence that the applicants received wages from the employer as consideration for their labor itself.
Accordingly, the panel held that, even before determining whether the dismissal in question constituted unfair dismissal, the applicants had failed to substantiate that they were employees under the Labor Standards Act, and thus it was difficult to recognize that they had standing as applicants to file for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission based its decision on the following grounds: first, there was no evidence that the applicants were subject to work rules, personnel regulations, or similar internal rules, or that they had been under the employer’s specific and direct direction and supervision; second, there was no proof that working hours and workplace were unilaterally determined by the employer and that the applicants were bound thereby; and third, sufficient materials had not been submitted regarding the form of contract, structure of payment, and tax treatment to conclude that the sums paid were wages as consideration for labor itself. Furthermore, even when comprehensively considering all factors relevant to determining employee status—such as the continuity and exclusivity of the labor-providing relationship and whether the applicants were enrolled in social insurance—the Commission found it difficult to recognize the applicants as employees under the Labor Standards Act, and ultimately concluded that they lacked standing as applicants to file for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For a worker to file an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal, it is first necessary to prepare objective evidence supporting that he or she is an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Specifically, it is important to systematically secure materials that show a relationship of subordination to the employer and the wage payment structure, such as work logs and work schedules, text messages, messenger records, and emails evidencing the company’s direction and supervision, pay slips, contracts, and records of enrollment in the four major social insurances. In particular, where one has worked under the form of freelancer, service outsourcing, or subcontracting, the contractual form alone does not negate employee status. However, if one cannot prove the extent to which the work was actually performed under the employer’s control, the application may be dismissed at the standing stage, as in this case.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when utilizing atypical contracts such as consignment, outsourcing, or freelance arrangements, it is important to align the contractual terms with actual operations so that the actual mode of work does not create a relationship of subordination under the Labor Standards Act. The scope of work instructions, whether working hours and workplace are designated, the method of remuneration, and ownership of equipment and supplies should be clearly designed and managed through documentation and systems so that, if a dispute over employee status arises before the Labor Relations Commission, the employer can defend itself more easily. Moreover, if, in substance, the relationship is operated as a typical employment relationship—with constant direction and supervision and payment of fixed wages—while only the form is maintained as “freelance,” an unfavorable decision may be rendered against the employer in future disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals. Employers are therefore advised to review their HR and labor structures in advance.
This decision once again confirms that, prior to examining whether a dismissal is unfair, the “existence of employee status under the Labor Standards Act and standing in Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures” is a preliminary issue. Where similar disputes are anticipated, it is advisable to consult with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to prepare in advance by organizing materials related to employee status and formulating a response strategy for proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
As there was no objective evidence that the workers in this case were employees under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer at the workplace in question and received wages in return, they were found not to have standing as applicants to file for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
As there was no objective evidence that the workers in this case were employees under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer at the workplace in question and received wages in return, they were found not to have standing as applicants to file for a remedy for unfair dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Labor Relations Commission Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal (Two Failures to Appear)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of employee status (standing), 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, “Labor Relations Commission Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal (Two Failures to Appear)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to non-existence of employee status (standing) can be found in the “List of Decisions Relating to Non-Existence of Employee Status (Standing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of employee status (standing).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Unfair342 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.18 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: As there was no objective evidence that the workers in this case were employees under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer at the workplace in question and received wages in return, they were found not to have standing as applicants to file for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the applicants filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that they had been unfairly dismissed by the employer. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, first raised the issue of the applicants’ employee status and standing. Focusing on whether the applicants were employees under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the employer at the workplace in question in a subordinate relationship and received wages in return, the Commission ultimately dismissed the application for remedy.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was whether “the applicants were employees under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor under the direction and supervision of the employer for the purpose of receiving wages, and therefore had standing to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.”
The panel in this case noted that there was no evidence that the employer had specifically determined and directed the content and method of the applicants’ work, that there were no circumstances confirming that the employer uniformly designated working hours and workplace and required compliance, and that there was a lack of objective evidence that the applicants received wages from the employer as consideration for their labor itself.
Accordingly, the panel held that, even before determining whether the dismissal in question constituted unfair dismissal, the applicants had failed to substantiate that they were employees under the Labor Standards Act, and thus it was difficult to recognize that they had standing as applicants to file for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission based its decision on the following grounds: first, there was no evidence that the applicants were subject to work rules, personnel regulations, or similar internal rules, or that they had been under the employer’s specific and direct direction and supervision; second, there was no proof that working hours and workplace were unilaterally determined by the employer and that the applicants were bound thereby; and third, sufficient materials had not been submitted regarding the form of contract, structure of payment, and tax treatment to conclude that the sums paid were wages as consideration for labor itself. Furthermore, even when comprehensively considering all factors relevant to determining employee status—such as the continuity and exclusivity of the labor-providing relationship and whether the applicants were enrolled in social insurance—the Commission found it difficult to recognize the applicants as employees under the Labor Standards Act, and ultimately concluded that they lacked standing as applicants to file for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For a worker to file an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal, it is first necessary to prepare objective evidence supporting that he or she is an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Specifically, it is important to systematically secure materials that show a relationship of subordination to the employer and the wage payment structure, such as work logs and work schedules, text messages, messenger records, and emails evidencing the company’s direction and supervision, pay slips, contracts, and records of enrollment in the four major social insurances. In particular, where one has worked under the form of freelancer, service outsourcing, or subcontracting, the contractual form alone does not negate employee status. However, if one cannot prove the extent to which the work was actually performed under the employer’s control, the application may be dismissed at the standing stage, as in this case.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when utilizing atypical contracts such as consignment, outsourcing, or freelance arrangements, it is important to align the contractual terms with actual operations so that the actual mode of work does not create a relationship of subordination under the Labor Standards Act. The scope of work instructions, whether working hours and workplace are designated, the method of remuneration, and ownership of equipment and supplies should be clearly designed and managed through documentation and systems so that, if a dispute over employee status arises before the Labor Relations Commission, the employer can defend itself more easily. Moreover, if, in substance, the relationship is operated as a typical employment relationship—with constant direction and supervision and payment of fixed wages—while only the form is maintained as “freelance,” an unfavorable decision may be rendered against the employer in future disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals. Employers are therefore advised to review their HR and labor structures in advance.
This decision once again confirms that, prior to examining whether a dismissal is unfair, the “existence of employee status under the Labor Standards Act and standing in Labor Relations Commission remedy procedures” is a preliminary issue. Where similar disputes are anticipated, it is advisable to consult with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to prepare in advance by organizing materials related to employee status and formulating a response strategy for proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
As there was no objective evidence that the workers in this case were employees under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer at the workplace in question and received wages in return, they were found not to have standing as applicants to file for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
As there was no objective evidence that the workers in this case were employees under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to the employer at the workplace in question and received wages in return, they were found not to have standing as applicants to file for a remedy for unfair dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Labor Relations Commission Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal (Two Failures to Appear)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of employee status (standing), 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, “Labor Relations Commission Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Dismissal (Two Failures to Appear)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to non-existence of employee status (standing) can be found in the “List of Decisions Relating to Non-Existence of Employee Status (Standing).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
