Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Employee Status and Written Notice (Head of Division with High Salary)” (Unfair Dismissal 146)
- Date2026/01/25 04:09
- Read 236
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issues of “employee status and written notice (head of division with high salary).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9258 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.26 · Case result: Full recognition
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the worker qualifies as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act: (1) The offer letter provided by the employer and signed by the worker expressly stated that the worker would not be regarded as an executive; (2) the parties executed a written employment contract; (3) under the personnel regulations, the position of “head of division” is classified as office staff; (4) the mere fact that the employer provided a company car, laptop, mobile phone, etc. does not negate employee status; (5) employees may receive high salaries depending on their role and capabilities, so a high salary alone cannot be grounds to deny employee status; in light of all these factors, the worker was found to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
[…]
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer told a highly paid worker holding the title of head of division, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” then stopped paying wages and processed termination from the four major social insurances. The worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, which was adjudicated by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused its review on whether the worker qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, when and how the dismissal occurred, and whether the grounds and procedures for dismissal were lawful.
Among the unfair dismissal disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, this case is notable in that the core issues were the employee status of a position on the borderline between executive and employee, and the employer’s obligation to provide written notice of dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were whether a highly paid individual with the title of head of division held a status closer to that of an executive as claimed by the employer, or whether he qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and thus could be a proper applicant for unfair dismissal relief, and whether a dismissal carried out without written notice or without following disciplinary procedures was valid.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case held that the worker qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, in light of the following: the offer letter presented by the employer and signed by the worker expressly stated that the worker would not be regarded as an executive; the parties executed a written employment contract like that of ordinary employees; and under the personnel regulations, the position of head of division is classified as office staff.
The panel further held that the worker could not be deemed an executive free from the employer’s direction and supervision solely because the employer provided a car, laptop, mobile phone, etc.; that even if a worker receives a high salary, employee status is not denied where the worker provides labor in a subordinate relationship under the employer’s direction and supervision; and that, considering that the employer told the worker on 24 September 2025, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” then stopped paying wages and processed termination from the four major social insurances effective 24 September 2025, the timing of the dismissal should be deemed to be 24 September 2025.
The Commission held that this dismissal was invalid because the employer failed to provide written notice of dismissal on 24 September 2025, thereby violating the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and thus the dismissal did not take legal effect.
Furthermore, even assuming that the employer had provided written notice of dismissal on 16 September 2025, the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment and personnel regulations, and because this contravened the purpose of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which is to promote dispute resolution and protect the worker’s right to defense by clearly notifying the grounds and timing of dismissal in writing.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if a worker holds a title such as head of division or team leader and receives a high salary, the worker may still be recognized as an employee under the Labor Standards Act if the offer letter, employment contract, and personnel regulations do not define the worker as an executive and if the worker performed duties in a subordinate relationship under the company’s direction and supervision. In addition, if the employer says, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” and then stops paying wages and terminates the four major social insurances, this may be recognized as a de facto dismissal even in the absence of a separate dismissal letter. Accordingly, the period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be calculated based on that point in time. Since a dismissal carried out without written notice is, in principle, without effect, employees should carefully check whether they received a written dismissal notice and whether a disciplinary committee was convened.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when hiring persons to managerial or titled positions, it is important to clearly define in writing whether they are executives or employees, and to operate consistently with the personnel regulations and organizational chart. Under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, in order to dismiss a worker, the employer must provide advance written notice specifying the concrete grounds and effective date of dismissal, and must first follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment and personnel regulations (such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity to be heard) before deciding on dismissal. Simply telling a worker orally to “stop coming to work” and then cutting off wages and the four major social insurances invites disputes over the timing and effectiveness of the dismissal and carries a very high risk of an unfair dismissal finding due to defects in written notice and procedure.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
(1) The offer letter provided by the employer and signed by the worker expressly stated that the worker would not be regarded as an executive;
(2) the parties executed a written employment contract;
(3) under the personnel regulations, the position of head of division is classified as office staff;
(4) the mere fact that the employer provided the worker with a car, laptop, mobile phone, etc. does not negate employee status;
(5) employees may receive high salaries depending on their role and capabilities, so employee status cannot be denied solely on the basis of a high salary;
in light of all these factors, the worker qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
B. When the dismissal occurred
(1) On 24 September 2025, the employer met the worker and told him not to come in from the next day;
(2) thereafter, the employer did not pay the worker’s wages;
(3) in the complaint case filed by the worker with the Labor Office, the employer set the worker’s retirement date as 24 September 2025, processed termination from the four major social insurances, and paid wages accordingly;
in light of all these factors, it is reasonable to deem the date of dismissal as 24 September 2025.
C. Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
Because the employer did not provide written notice of dismissal to the worker on 24 September 2025, the dismissal is invalid. Furthermore, even assuming that written notice of dismissal was given on 16 September 2025, the dismissal is unfair because the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
(1) The offer letter provided by the employer and signed by the worker expressly stated that the worker would not be regarded as an executive;
(2) the parties executed a written employment contract;
(3) under the personnel regulations, the position of head of division is classified as office staff;
(4) the mere fact that the employer provided the worker with a car, laptop, mobile phone, etc. does not negate employee status;
(5) employees may receive high salaries depending on their role and capabilities, so employee status cannot be denied solely on the basis of a high salary;
in light of all these factors, the worker qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
B. When the dismissal occurred
(1) On 24 September 2025, the employer met the worker and told him not to come in from the next day;
(2) thereafter, the employer did not pay the worker’s wages;
(3) in the complaint case filed by the worker with the Labor Office, the employer set the worker’s retirement date as 24 September 2025, processed termination from the four major social insurances, and paid wages accordingly;
in light of all these factors, it is reasonable to deem the date of dismissal as 24 September 2025.
C. Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
Because the employer did not provide written notice of dismissal to the worker on 24 September 2025, the dismissal is invalid. Furthermore, even assuming that written notice of dismissal was given on 16 September 2025, the dismissal is unfair because the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Employer Status (Directly Managed vs. Indirectly Managed Site Security)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status·written notice (head of division with high salary), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Case on ‘Employer Status (Directly Managed vs. Indirectly Managed Site Security)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to employee status·written notice (head of division with high salary) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status·Written Notice (Head of Division with High Salary).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issues of “employee status and written notice (head of division with high salary).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9258 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.26 · Case result: Full recognition
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the worker qualifies as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act: (1) The offer letter provided by the employer and signed by the worker expressly stated that the worker would not be regarded as an executive; (2) the parties executed a written employment contract; (3) under the personnel regulations, the position of “head of division” is classified as office staff; (4) the mere fact that the employer provided a company car, laptop, mobile phone, etc. does not negate employee status; (5) employees may receive high salaries depending on their role and capabilities, so a high salary alone cannot be grounds to deny employee status; in light of all these factors, the worker was found to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
[…]
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer told a highly paid worker holding the title of head of division, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” then stopped paying wages and processed termination from the four major social insurances. The worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, which was adjudicated by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused its review on whether the worker qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, when and how the dismissal occurred, and whether the grounds and procedures for dismissal were lawful.
Among the unfair dismissal disputes handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, this case is notable in that the core issues were the employee status of a position on the borderline between executive and employee, and the employer’s obligation to provide written notice of dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were whether a highly paid individual with the title of head of division held a status closer to that of an executive as claimed by the employer, or whether he qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and thus could be a proper applicant for unfair dismissal relief, and whether a dismissal carried out without written notice or without following disciplinary procedures was valid.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case held that the worker qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, in light of the following: the offer letter presented by the employer and signed by the worker expressly stated that the worker would not be regarded as an executive; the parties executed a written employment contract like that of ordinary employees; and under the personnel regulations, the position of head of division is classified as office staff.
The panel further held that the worker could not be deemed an executive free from the employer’s direction and supervision solely because the employer provided a car, laptop, mobile phone, etc.; that even if a worker receives a high salary, employee status is not denied where the worker provides labor in a subordinate relationship under the employer’s direction and supervision; and that, considering that the employer told the worker on 24 September 2025, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” then stopped paying wages and processed termination from the four major social insurances effective 24 September 2025, the timing of the dismissal should be deemed to be 24 September 2025.
The Commission held that this dismissal was invalid because the employer failed to provide written notice of dismissal on 24 September 2025, thereby violating the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and thus the dismissal did not take legal effect.
Furthermore, even assuming that the employer had provided written notice of dismissal on 16 September 2025, the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment and personnel regulations, and because this contravened the purpose of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which is to promote dispute resolution and protect the worker’s right to defense by clearly notifying the grounds and timing of dismissal in writing.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if a worker holds a title such as head of division or team leader and receives a high salary, the worker may still be recognized as an employee under the Labor Standards Act if the offer letter, employment contract, and personnel regulations do not define the worker as an executive and if the worker performed duties in a subordinate relationship under the company’s direction and supervision. In addition, if the employer says, “Do not come in from tomorrow,” and then stops paying wages and terminates the four major social insurances, this may be recognized as a de facto dismissal even in the absence of a separate dismissal letter. Accordingly, the period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be calculated based on that point in time. Since a dismissal carried out without written notice is, in principle, without effect, employees should carefully check whether they received a written dismissal notice and whether a disciplinary committee was convened.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, when hiring persons to managerial or titled positions, it is important to clearly define in writing whether they are executives or employees, and to operate consistently with the personnel regulations and organizational chart. Under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, in order to dismiss a worker, the employer must provide advance written notice specifying the concrete grounds and effective date of dismissal, and must first follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment and personnel regulations (such as convening a disciplinary committee and providing an opportunity to be heard) before deciding on dismissal. Simply telling a worker orally to “stop coming to work” and then cutting off wages and the four major social insurances invites disputes over the timing and effectiveness of the dismissal and carries a very high risk of an unfair dismissal finding due to defects in written notice and procedure.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
(1) The offer letter provided by the employer and signed by the worker expressly stated that the worker would not be regarded as an executive;
(2) the parties executed a written employment contract;
(3) under the personnel regulations, the position of head of division is classified as office staff;
(4) the mere fact that the employer provided the worker with a car, laptop, mobile phone, etc. does not negate employee status;
(5) employees may receive high salaries depending on their role and capabilities, so employee status cannot be denied solely on the basis of a high salary;
in light of all these factors, the worker qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
B. When the dismissal occurred
(1) On 24 September 2025, the employer met the worker and told him not to come in from the next day;
(2) thereafter, the employer did not pay the worker’s wages;
(3) in the complaint case filed by the worker with the Labor Office, the employer set the worker’s retirement date as 24 September 2025, processed termination from the four major social insurances, and paid wages accordingly;
in light of all these factors, it is reasonable to deem the date of dismissal as 24 September 2025.
C. Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
Because the employer did not provide written notice of dismissal to the worker on 24 September 2025, the dismissal is invalid. Furthermore, even assuming that written notice of dismissal was given on 16 September 2025, the dismissal is unfair because the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the worker is an employee under the Labor Standards Act
(1) The offer letter provided by the employer and signed by the worker expressly stated that the worker would not be regarded as an executive;
(2) the parties executed a written employment contract;
(3) under the personnel regulations, the position of head of division is classified as office staff;
(4) the mere fact that the employer provided the worker with a car, laptop, mobile phone, etc. does not negate employee status;
(5) employees may receive high salaries depending on their role and capabilities, so employee status cannot be denied solely on the basis of a high salary;
in light of all these factors, the worker qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
B. When the dismissal occurred
(1) On 24 September 2025, the employer met the worker and told him not to come in from the next day;
(2) thereafter, the employer did not pay the worker’s wages;
(3) in the complaint case filed by the worker with the Labor Office, the employer set the worker’s retirement date as 24 September 2025, processed termination from the four major social insurances, and paid wages accordingly;
in light of all these factors, it is reasonable to deem the date of dismissal as 24 September 2025.
C. Whether the dismissal was justified (grounds and procedure)
Because the employer did not provide written notice of dismissal to the worker on 24 September 2025, the dismissal is invalid. Furthermore, even assuming that written notice of dismissal was given on 16 September 2025, the dismissal is unfair because the employer failed to follow the disciplinary procedures prescribed in the rules of employment and personnel regulations.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Employer Status (Directly Managed vs. Indirectly Managed Site Security)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case on ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status·written notice (head of division with high salary), disciplinary dismissal, 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 Case on ‘Employer Status (Directly Managed vs. Indirectly Managed Site Security)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to employee status·written notice (head of division with high salary) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status·Written Notice (Head of Division with High Salary).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
