Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Denial of Employee Status (Private Academy Freelance Instructor)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 143)
- Date2026/01/24 04:10
- Read 224
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “denial of employee status (private academy freelance instructor).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1379 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.29 · Case result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues: (i) The term of the engagement contract was determined by mutual consultation between the parties and reduced to writing, and the lecture schedule was also finalized by mutual agreement, comprehensively taking into account the academy’s overall operational plan and the worker’s personal circumstances; (ii) the academy’s direct involvement or work instructions were limited to essential and restricted areas such as safety management and basic facility use, and it did not issue instructions or exercise supervision over the worker’s performance of work, limiting itself to a minimum level of cooperation for student safety and handling parents’ complaints; (iii) no separate attendance or time‑keeping management was carried out outside lecture hours; and (iv) the work rules and annual leave system of the workplace did not apply, concurrent work was always permitted so that the worker registered as a business operator and conducted other lectures and content‑related business, remuneration was calculated based on teaching hours with the worker setting the tuition unit price and issuing estimates and tax invoices, and the instructor contract specified that the worker was a freelance income earner and that no employment contract relationship was formed. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission held that employee status under the Labor Standards Act was not established.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an instructor who had entered into an engagement contract with a private academy and had been giving lectures claimed that the termination of the contract constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, which proceeded up to re‑examination before the Central Labor Relations Commission. The applicant argued that he/she was, in substance, an employee under the Labor Standards Act and therefore entitled to a remedy for unfair dismissal, while the employer contended that the applicant was a freelance income earner under an engagement contract and not an employee.
The Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the applicant qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, comprehensively reviewing the contents of the engagement contract, the manner in which lectures were operated, and the remuneration structure.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is “whether a freelance instructor who entered into an engagement contract with a private academy, registered as a business operator, and received lecture fees through the issuance of tax invoices qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who may seek a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the term of the engagement contract and the lecture schedule were determined by mutual consultation between the parties; that the academy’s involvement and work instructions were limited to essential and restricted areas such as safety management and basic facility use, with no instructions or supervision regarding the content or method of lectures; and that no separate attendance or time‑keeping management was carried out outside lecture hours.
It also found that the workplace’s work rules and annual leave system did not apply; that there was no special agreement on annual leave and no separate request for or use of annual leave; that concurrent work was always permitted so that the applicant registered as a business operator and conducted other lectures and content‑related business; that remuneration was calculated according to the number of teaching hours, with the applicant setting the tuition unit price, submitting estimates and issuing tax invoices to receive payment; and that the instructor contract specified that the instructor was a freelance income earner and that no employment contract relationship was formed.
In light of all these circumstances, the Commission held that it was difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provides labor in a relationship of subordination for the purpose of receiving wages, and therefore the prerequisite “employee status” for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission was not satisfied.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Instructors at private academies, freelancers, and those working under engagement‑type contracts should understand that, even if the contract describes them as a “freelance income earner” and “not an employment contract,” employee status is determined based on elements of subordination such as whether working hours and place are designated, whether work rules apply, the extent of specific direction and supervision, exclusivity, and whether fixed wages are paid. However, as in this case, if you set your own lecture schedule and remuneration unit price, are free to engage in concurrent work, and operate in a manner similar to a business through the issuance of tax invoices, an application for remedy for unfair dismissal may be blocked at the “denial of employee status” stage. It is therefore advisable to review in advance your contractual structure and the way your work is actually organized.
If you seek a remedy for unfair dismissal, you should organize and retain concrete materials showing the extent of the employer’s direction and supervision in practice, any circumstances in which you were treated like an employee (such as application of work rules, attendance management, and annual leave), and the nature of exclusivity and your income structure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
For private academies, educational institutions, platform operators, and others who utilize engagement contracts with instructors and freelancers, it is important to maintain, in substance, the elements that distinguish such arrangements from employee status under the Labor Standards Act. As in this case, it is helpful for denying employee status that specific direction and supervision over the content and method of lectures is minimized, that attendance and time‑keeping management and the application of work rules are not implemented, that concurrent work is broadly permitted, and that tuition unit prices and remuneration structures are operated through mutual agreement and the issuance of tax invoices.
However, as emphasized by Supreme Court precedents, employee status cannot be uniformly denied merely because the worker is not enrolled in the four major social insurances, issues tax invoices, or has business registration. It is therefore necessary to align the contents of the contract with actual operational practices so that a substantive relationship of subordination does not arise, and to thoroughly prepare documentation and explanation procedures.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The term of the engagement contract was determined by mutual consultation between the parties and reduced to writing, and the lecture schedule was also finalized by mutual agreement, comprehensively taking into account the academy’s overall operational plan and the worker’s personal circumstances; (2) the academy’s direct involvement or work instructions were limited to essential and restricted areas such as safety management and basic facility use, and it did not issue instructions or exercise supervision over the worker’s performance of work, limiting itself to a minimum level of cooperation for student safety and handling parents’ complaints; (3) apart from the conduct of lecture hours, there was no separate management of arrival and departure times, no control in that regard, and no attendance management such as for tardiness, early departure, or absence; (4) the workplace’s work rules did not apply, there was no special agreement regarding annual leave, and no separate request for or use of annual leave; (5) even during the contract period with the employer, concurrent work was always freely permitted, and the worker registered as a business operator and conducted other lecture activities or operated a business through planning educational content; (6) remuneration was calculated and paid according to the number of teaching hours, with the worker setting the tuition unit price, submitting tuition estimates to the employer, and issuing tax invoices to receive tuition; and (7) the instructor contract expressly stated that the worker was a freelance income earner and that no employment contract relationship was formed between the worker and the employer. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the worker as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, whose essence is the provision of labor in a relationship of subordination to the employer.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(1) The term of the engagement contract was determined by mutual consultation between the parties and reduced to writing, and the lecture schedule was also finalized by mutual agreement, comprehensively taking into account the academy’s overall operational plan and the worker’s personal circumstances; (2) the academy’s direct involvement or work instructions were limited to essential and restricted areas such as safety management and basic facility use, and it did not issue instructions or exercise supervision over the worker’s performance of work, limiting itself to a minimum level of cooperation for student safety and handling parents’ complaints; (3) apart from the conduct of lecture hours, there was no separate management of arrival and departure times, no control in that regard, and no attendance management such as for tardiness, early departure, or absence; (4) the workplace’s work rules did not apply, there was no special agreement regarding annual leave, and no separate request for or use of annual leave; (5) even during the contract period with the employer, concurrent work was always freely permitted, and the worker registered as a business operator and conducted other lecture activities or operated a business through planning educational content; (6) remuneration was calculated and paid according to the number of teaching hours, with the worker setting the tuition unit price, submitting tuition estimates to the employer, and issuing tax invoices to receive tuition; and (7) the instructor contract expressly stated that the worker was a freelance income earner and that no employment contract relationship was formed between the worker and the employer. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the worker as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, whose essence is the provision of labor in a relationship of subordination to the employer. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Abuse of Discretion (Unpaid Work Exclusion of Care Worker)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (private academy freelance instructor), 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, “‘Abuse of Discretion (Unpaid Work Exclusion of Care Worker)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (private academy freelance instructor) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Private Academy Freelance Instructor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the initial decision was upheld on the issue of “denial of employee status (private academy freelance instructor).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1379 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.29 · Case result: Initial decision upheld
Summary of key issues: (i) The term of the engagement contract was determined by mutual consultation between the parties and reduced to writing, and the lecture schedule was also finalized by mutual agreement, comprehensively taking into account the academy’s overall operational plan and the worker’s personal circumstances; (ii) the academy’s direct involvement or work instructions were limited to essential and restricted areas such as safety management and basic facility use, and it did not issue instructions or exercise supervision over the worker’s performance of work, limiting itself to a minimum level of cooperation for student safety and handling parents’ complaints; (iii) no separate attendance or time‑keeping management was carried out outside lecture hours; and (iv) the work rules and annual leave system of the workplace did not apply, concurrent work was always permitted so that the worker registered as a business operator and conducted other lectures and content‑related business, remuneration was calculated based on teaching hours with the worker setting the tuition unit price and issuing estimates and tax invoices, and the instructor contract specified that the worker was a freelance income earner and that no employment contract relationship was formed. In light of all these circumstances, the Commission held that employee status under the Labor Standards Act was not established.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an instructor who had entered into an engagement contract with a private academy and had been giving lectures claimed that the termination of the contract constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, which proceeded up to re‑examination before the Central Labor Relations Commission. The applicant argued that he/she was, in substance, an employee under the Labor Standards Act and therefore entitled to a remedy for unfair dismissal, while the employer contended that the applicant was a freelance income earner under an engagement contract and not an employee.
The Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the applicant qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, comprehensively reviewing the contents of the engagement contract, the manner in which lectures were operated, and the remuneration structure.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is “whether a freelance instructor who entered into an engagement contract with a private academy, registered as a business operator, and received lecture fees through the issuance of tax invoices qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who may seek a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the term of the engagement contract and the lecture schedule were determined by mutual consultation between the parties; that the academy’s involvement and work instructions were limited to essential and restricted areas such as safety management and basic facility use, with no instructions or supervision regarding the content or method of lectures; and that no separate attendance or time‑keeping management was carried out outside lecture hours.
It also found that the workplace’s work rules and annual leave system did not apply; that there was no special agreement on annual leave and no separate request for or use of annual leave; that concurrent work was always permitted so that the applicant registered as a business operator and conducted other lectures and content‑related business; that remuneration was calculated according to the number of teaching hours, with the applicant setting the tuition unit price, submitting estimates and issuing tax invoices to receive payment; and that the instructor contract specified that the instructor was a freelance income earner and that no employment contract relationship was formed.
In light of all these circumstances, the Commission held that it was difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provides labor in a relationship of subordination for the purpose of receiving wages, and therefore the prerequisite “employee status” for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission was not satisfied.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Instructors at private academies, freelancers, and those working under engagement‑type contracts should understand that, even if the contract describes them as a “freelance income earner” and “not an employment contract,” employee status is determined based on elements of subordination such as whether working hours and place are designated, whether work rules apply, the extent of specific direction and supervision, exclusivity, and whether fixed wages are paid. However, as in this case, if you set your own lecture schedule and remuneration unit price, are free to engage in concurrent work, and operate in a manner similar to a business through the issuance of tax invoices, an application for remedy for unfair dismissal may be blocked at the “denial of employee status” stage. It is therefore advisable to review in advance your contractual structure and the way your work is actually organized.
If you seek a remedy for unfair dismissal, you should organize and retain concrete materials showing the extent of the employer’s direction and supervision in practice, any circumstances in which you were treated like an employee (such as application of work rules, attendance management, and annual leave), and the nature of exclusivity and your income structure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
For private academies, educational institutions, platform operators, and others who utilize engagement contracts with instructors and freelancers, it is important to maintain, in substance, the elements that distinguish such arrangements from employee status under the Labor Standards Act. As in this case, it is helpful for denying employee status that specific direction and supervision over the content and method of lectures is minimized, that attendance and time‑keeping management and the application of work rules are not implemented, that concurrent work is broadly permitted, and that tuition unit prices and remuneration structures are operated through mutual agreement and the issuance of tax invoices.
However, as emphasized by Supreme Court precedents, employee status cannot be uniformly denied merely because the worker is not enrolled in the four major social insurances, issues tax invoices, or has business registration. It is therefore necessary to align the contents of the contract with actual operational practices so that a substantive relationship of subordination does not arise, and to thoroughly prepare documentation and explanation procedures.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The term of the engagement contract was determined by mutual consultation between the parties and reduced to writing, and the lecture schedule was also finalized by mutual agreement, comprehensively taking into account the academy’s overall operational plan and the worker’s personal circumstances; (2) the academy’s direct involvement or work instructions were limited to essential and restricted areas such as safety management and basic facility use, and it did not issue instructions or exercise supervision over the worker’s performance of work, limiting itself to a minimum level of cooperation for student safety and handling parents’ complaints; (3) apart from the conduct of lecture hours, there was no separate management of arrival and departure times, no control in that regard, and no attendance management such as for tardiness, early departure, or absence; (4) the workplace’s work rules did not apply, there was no special agreement regarding annual leave, and no separate request for or use of annual leave; (5) even during the contract period with the employer, concurrent work was always freely permitted, and the worker registered as a business operator and conducted other lecture activities or operated a business through planning educational content; (6) remuneration was calculated and paid according to the number of teaching hours, with the worker setting the tuition unit price, submitting tuition estimates to the employer, and issuing tax invoices to receive tuition; and (7) the instructor contract expressly stated that the worker was a freelance income earner and that no employment contract relationship was formed between the worker and the employer. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the worker as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, whose essence is the provision of labor in a relationship of subordination to the employer.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
(1) The term of the engagement contract was determined by mutual consultation between the parties and reduced to writing, and the lecture schedule was also finalized by mutual agreement, comprehensively taking into account the academy’s overall operational plan and the worker’s personal circumstances; (2) the academy’s direct involvement or work instructions were limited to essential and restricted areas such as safety management and basic facility use, and it did not issue instructions or exercise supervision over the worker’s performance of work, limiting itself to a minimum level of cooperation for student safety and handling parents’ complaints; (3) apart from the conduct of lecture hours, there was no separate management of arrival and departure times, no control in that regard, and no attendance management such as for tardiness, early departure, or absence; (4) the workplace’s work rules did not apply, there was no special agreement regarding annual leave, and no separate request for or use of annual leave; (5) even during the contract period with the employer, concurrent work was always freely permitted, and the worker registered as a business operator and conducted other lecture activities or operated a business through planning educational content; (6) remuneration was calculated and paid according to the number of teaching hours, with the worker setting the tuition unit price, submitting tuition estimates to the employer, and issuing tax invoices to receive tuition; and (7) the instructor contract expressly stated that the worker was a freelance income earner and that no employment contract relationship was formed between the worker and the employer. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to regard the worker as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, whose essence is the provision of labor in a relationship of subordination to the employer. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Abuse of Discretion (Unpaid Work Exclusion of Care Worker)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (private academy freelance instructor), 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, “‘Abuse of Discretion (Unpaid Work Exclusion of Care Worker)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (private academy freelance instructor) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Private Academy Freelance Instructor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
