Corporate trends / Performance record
Denial of Employee Status (Unlimited Corporate Card) in Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 176)
- Date2026/02/04 04:09
- Read 232
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “denial of employee status (unlimited corporate card).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1278 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reexamination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.16 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues: (1) The worker did not receive work instructions from the employer, and the worker likewise did not report on work performed; (2) it is difficult to regard the payments received as remuneration in return for labor; and (3) the worker was issued and used a corporate card for business promotion with no limit or restriction on its use. In comprehensive consideration of these points, the worker was found not to fall within the definition of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal remedy reexamination case, the central issue was whether the applicant who sought relief from the Labor Relations Commission actually qualified as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. The applicant claimed to have been dismissed by the employer and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy. However, the Central Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the applicant qualified as an employee, applying the criteria related to employee status that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently deals with.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a person who has no relationship of work instructions or reporting, whose remuneration structure is difficult to regard as wages, and who has been granted and used a corporate card with no limit or restriction on its use can be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that there was no evidence that the employer gave the applicant specific work instructions, nor any indication that the applicant regularly or continuously reported work to the employer; that the sums received by the applicant were closer in nature to payments other than wages as consideration for labor, and that the remuneration relationship itself was unclear; and that the corporate card issued in the name of business promotion had no set limit or restrictions on its use, such that the user appeared to have incurred expenses at his or her own discretion and responsibility.
In light of the criteria for determining employee status under the Labor Standards Act—namely, whether the person “provides labor to an employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages”—the panel held that it was difficult to recognize the existence of subordination.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found not to be subject to the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal remedy procedures, on the ground that, since the applicant did not qualify as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, the applicant failed to satisfy the prerequisite of employee status for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Those who work with an employer in a similar form should examine not only whether a written employment contract exists, but also whether they actually receive work instructions and work at fixed times and places, whether they receive a fixed monthly wage, and who bears the risks of expenses and income. In particular, if the use of a corporate card is largely unrestricted and remuneration is structured mainly around performance or expense settlement, it may be difficult to have employee status recognized in the event of a dispute. It is therefore advisable to clarify in advance the form of the contract and the remuneration structure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, if work is entrusted in substance to independent business operators or freelancers, but they are managed in form like employees or are paid in a manner similar to wages, there is a high risk that disputes over employee status may arise in the future. Conversely, where, as in this case, the personnel involved are highly independent, the employer should clearly distinguish, at the contract stage, the system of work instructions and reporting, the method of remuneration, and the limits and rules on the use of corporate cards, and document these matters so that the company’s position can be supported when the Labor Relations Commission assesses the existence of subordination.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In comprehensive consideration of (1) the fact that the worker did not receive work instructions from the employer and likewise did not report on work performed; (2) the fact that it is difficult to regard the payments received as remuneration in return for labor; and (3) the fact that the worker was issued and used a corporate card for business promotion with no limit or restriction on its use, the worker was found not to fall within the definition of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
In comprehensive consideration of (1) the fact that the worker did not receive work instructions from the employer and likewise did not report on work performed; (2) the fact that it is difficult to regard the payments received as remuneration in return for labor; and (3) the fact that the worker was issued and used a corporate card for business promotion with no limit or restriction on its use, the worker was found not to fall within the definition of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Single Contract After Business Transfer)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (unlimited corporate card), 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, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Single Contract After Business Transfer)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (unlimited corporate card) can be viewed together in the “Denial of Employee Status (Unlimited Corporate Card) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “denial of employee status (unlimited corporate card).”
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1278 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reexamination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.12.16 · Case result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues: (1) The worker did not receive work instructions from the employer, and the worker likewise did not report on work performed; (2) it is difficult to regard the payments received as remuneration in return for labor; and (3) the worker was issued and used a corporate card for business promotion with no limit or restriction on its use. In comprehensive consideration of these points, the worker was found not to fall within the definition of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal remedy reexamination case, the central issue was whether the applicant who sought relief from the Labor Relations Commission actually qualified as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. The applicant claimed to have been dismissed by the employer and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy. However, the Central Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the applicant qualified as an employee, applying the criteria related to employee status that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently deals with.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a person who has no relationship of work instructions or reporting, whose remuneration structure is difficult to regard as wages, and who has been granted and used a corporate card with no limit or restriction on its use can be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that there was no evidence that the employer gave the applicant specific work instructions, nor any indication that the applicant regularly or continuously reported work to the employer; that the sums received by the applicant were closer in nature to payments other than wages as consideration for labor, and that the remuneration relationship itself was unclear; and that the corporate card issued in the name of business promotion had no set limit or restrictions on its use, such that the user appeared to have incurred expenses at his or her own discretion and responsibility.
In light of the criteria for determining employee status under the Labor Standards Act—namely, whether the person “provides labor to an employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages”—the panel held that it was difficult to recognize the existence of subordination.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found not to be subject to the Labor Relations Commission’s unfair dismissal remedy procedures, on the ground that, since the applicant did not qualify as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, the applicant failed to satisfy the prerequisite of employee status for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Those who work with an employer in a similar form should examine not only whether a written employment contract exists, but also whether they actually receive work instructions and work at fixed times and places, whether they receive a fixed monthly wage, and who bears the risks of expenses and income. In particular, if the use of a corporate card is largely unrestricted and remuneration is structured mainly around performance or expense settlement, it may be difficult to have employee status recognized in the event of a dispute. It is therefore advisable to clarify in advance the form of the contract and the remuneration structure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, if work is entrusted in substance to independent business operators or freelancers, but they are managed in form like employees or are paid in a manner similar to wages, there is a high risk that disputes over employee status may arise in the future. Conversely, where, as in this case, the personnel involved are highly independent, the employer should clearly distinguish, at the contract stage, the system of work instructions and reporting, the method of remuneration, and the limits and rules on the use of corporate cards, and document these matters so that the company’s position can be supported when the Labor Relations Commission assesses the existence of subordination.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In comprehensive consideration of (1) the fact that the worker did not receive work instructions from the employer and likewise did not report on work performed; (2) the fact that it is difficult to regard the payments received as remuneration in return for labor; and (3) the fact that the worker was issued and used a corporate card for business promotion with no limit or restriction on its use, the worker was found not to fall within the definition of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
In comprehensive consideration of (1) the fact that the worker did not receive work instructions from the employer and likewise did not report on work performed; (2) the fact that it is difficult to regard the payments received as remuneration in return for labor; and (3) the fact that the worker was issued and used a corporate card for business promotion with no limit or restriction on its use, the worker was found not to fall within the definition of an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Single Contract After Business Transfer)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (unlimited corporate card), 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, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Single Contract After Business Transfer)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (unlimited corporate card) can be viewed together in the “Denial of Employee Status (Unlimited Corporate Card) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
