Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Standing as Employer (Separate Corporation – E‑Cigarette Inventory Management)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 198)
- Date2026/02/13 04:09
- Read 247
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision on the issue of “standing as employer (separate corporation – e‑cigarette inventory management),” in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed).
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision that concluded with a finding in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application) on the issue of “standing as employer (separate corporation – e‑cigarette inventory management).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2025부해9021 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.12 · Outcome: Application dismissed
Summary of key issue: In light of the facts that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 are engaged in different lines of business and are registered as separate corporations; that recruitment, execution of employment contracts, wage payment, and reporting for the four major social insurances were carried out separately by workplace; that tax and accounting were handled independently for each workplace; and that there were indications that HR and labor management were independently administered by workplace, it is difficult to conclude that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 constitute a single business.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee disputed which business entity had actually employed him and applied for relief from unfair dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that the respondent lacked standing as employer. The employee, who performed e‑cigarette inventory management work, filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Workplace 1, and the Commission examined the relationship between Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 and the employee’s actual relationship of subordination and control.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, between two workplaces engaged in different businesses and operated as separate corporations, an employment relationship was formed between the employee performing e‑cigarette inventory management work and Workplace 1, thereby giving Workplace 1 standing as the employer (respondent) in the unfair dismissal relief proceedings.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that, given that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 are engaged in different lines of business and are registered as separate corporations; that recruitment, execution of employment contracts, wage payment, and reporting for the four major social insurances were carried out separately by workplace; and that tax, accounting, and HR/labor management were each handled independently, it is difficult to regard the two workplaces as a single business.
The panel further found that the employee’s work was limited to e‑cigarette inventory management, which is the business of Workplace 2; that the employee was enrolled in employment insurance under the name of Workplace 2; and that his wages were paid by Workplace 2. In light of these circumstances, the panel concluded that the employee must be deemed to have entered into an employment relationship with Workplace 2.
As to the dismissal in this case, the panel held that, absent any objective circumstances or indications from which it could be inferred that Workplace 1 had in fact used the employee’s labor, it is difficult to recognize an employment contract between the employee and Workplace 1. Accordingly, Workplace 1 lacked standing as a party (employer) in the unfair dismissal relief proceedings.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When challenging an unfair dismissal, an employee must accurately identify the entity that actually hired, directed, supervised, and paid him or her—that is, the substantive employer—and file the application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission against that entity. In particular, where multiple corporations or workplaces are interconnected, the employee should first organize objective materials—such as the workplace registered for employment insurance, payroll records, personnel orders, and the chain of command for work instructions—to determine with which corporation he or she has an employment relationship. If necessary, the employee should seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& in order to correctly identify the proper respondent.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
Where multiple corporations or workplaces are operated and HR, payroll, the four major social insurances, and tax/accounting are in fact separated, it is important to ensure that this separation is not merely formal but is clearly reflected in the actual relationships of labor utilization, direction, and supervision. Conversely, if personnel authority, wage payment, office space, and accounting are commingled, there is a risk that the courts or the Labor Relations Commission may evaluate the entities as a single business or as the same employer. Employers should therefore systematically establish the scope of the employer and the HR/labor management system from the organizational design stage.
To prevail in this type of case, employers must fully understand the legal principles governing the determination of employee status and employer status, as well as standing as employer, and should prepare in advance documentation capable of proving the corporate structure among workplaces and the actual state of HR and accounting operations.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the facts that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 are engaged in different lines of business and are registered as separate corporations; that recruitment, execution of employment contracts, wage payment, and reporting for the four major social insurances were carried out separately by workplace; that tax and accounting were handled independently for each workplace; and that there were indications that HR and labor management were independently administered by workplace, it is difficult to conclude that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 constitute a single business. Considering that the employee performed only the e‑cigarette inventory management work, which is the business of Workplace 2; that the employee was registered for employment insurance under Workplace 2; and that he received wages from Workplace 2, the employee appears to have entered into an employment relationship with Workplace 2. Since there are no objective circumstances or indications from which it can be inferred that the employer, i.e., Workplace 1, actually used the employee’s labor, it is difficult to find that an employment relationship was formed between the parties, and therefore the employer is deemed to lack standing as a party.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the facts that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 are engaged in different lines of business and are registered as separate corporations; that recruitment, execution of employment contracts, wage payment, and reporting for the four major social insurances were carried out separately by workplace; that tax and accounting were handled independently for each workplace; and that there were indications that HR and labor management were independently administered by workplace, it is difficult to conclude that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 constitute a single business. Considering that the employee performed only the e‑cigarette inventory management work, which is the business of Workplace 2; that the employee was registered for employment insurance under Workplace 2; and that he received wages from Workplace 2, the employee appears to have entered into an employment relationship with Workplace 2. Since there are no objective circumstances or indications from which it can be inferred that the employer, i.e., Workplace 1, actually used the employee’s labor, it is difficult to find that an employment relationship was formed between the parties, and therefore the employer is deemed to lack standing as a party. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case No.: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, standing as employer (separate corporation – e‑cigarette inventory management), 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, “Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to standing as employer (separate corporation – e‑cigarette inventory management) can be found under “List of Decisions on Standing as Employer (Separate Corporation – E‑Cigarette Inventory Management).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision that concluded with a finding in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application) on the issue of “standing as employer (separate corporation – e‑cigarette inventory management).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2025부해9021 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.12 · Outcome: Application dismissed
Summary of key issue: In light of the facts that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 are engaged in different lines of business and are registered as separate corporations; that recruitment, execution of employment contracts, wage payment, and reporting for the four major social insurances were carried out separately by workplace; that tax and accounting were handled independently for each workplace; and that there were indications that HR and labor management were independently administered by workplace, it is difficult to conclude that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 constitute a single business.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee disputed which business entity had actually employed him and applied for relief from unfair dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that the respondent lacked standing as employer. The employee, who performed e‑cigarette inventory management work, filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Workplace 1, and the Commission examined the relationship between Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 and the employee’s actual relationship of subordination and control.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, between two workplaces engaged in different businesses and operated as separate corporations, an employment relationship was formed between the employee performing e‑cigarette inventory management work and Workplace 1, thereby giving Workplace 1 standing as the employer (respondent) in the unfair dismissal relief proceedings.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that, given that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 are engaged in different lines of business and are registered as separate corporations; that recruitment, execution of employment contracts, wage payment, and reporting for the four major social insurances were carried out separately by workplace; and that tax, accounting, and HR/labor management were each handled independently, it is difficult to regard the two workplaces as a single business.
The panel further found that the employee’s work was limited to e‑cigarette inventory management, which is the business of Workplace 2; that the employee was enrolled in employment insurance under the name of Workplace 2; and that his wages were paid by Workplace 2. In light of these circumstances, the panel concluded that the employee must be deemed to have entered into an employment relationship with Workplace 2.
As to the dismissal in this case, the panel held that, absent any objective circumstances or indications from which it could be inferred that Workplace 1 had in fact used the employee’s labor, it is difficult to recognize an employment contract between the employee and Workplace 1. Accordingly, Workplace 1 lacked standing as a party (employer) in the unfair dismissal relief proceedings.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
When challenging an unfair dismissal, an employee must accurately identify the entity that actually hired, directed, supervised, and paid him or her—that is, the substantive employer—and file the application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission against that entity. In particular, where multiple corporations or workplaces are interconnected, the employee should first organize objective materials—such as the workplace registered for employment insurance, payroll records, personnel orders, and the chain of command for work instructions—to determine with which corporation he or she has an employment relationship. If necessary, the employee should seek advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& in order to correctly identify the proper respondent.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
Where multiple corporations or workplaces are operated and HR, payroll, the four major social insurances, and tax/accounting are in fact separated, it is important to ensure that this separation is not merely formal but is clearly reflected in the actual relationships of labor utilization, direction, and supervision. Conversely, if personnel authority, wage payment, office space, and accounting are commingled, there is a risk that the courts or the Labor Relations Commission may evaluate the entities as a single business or as the same employer. Employers should therefore systematically establish the scope of the employer and the HR/labor management system from the organizational design stage.
To prevail in this type of case, employers must fully understand the legal principles governing the determination of employee status and employer status, as well as standing as employer, and should prepare in advance documentation capable of proving the corporate structure among workplaces and the actual state of HR and accounting operations.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the facts that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 are engaged in different lines of business and are registered as separate corporations; that recruitment, execution of employment contracts, wage payment, and reporting for the four major social insurances were carried out separately by workplace; that tax and accounting were handled independently for each workplace; and that there were indications that HR and labor management were independently administered by workplace, it is difficult to conclude that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 constitute a single business. Considering that the employee performed only the e‑cigarette inventory management work, which is the business of Workplace 2; that the employee was registered for employment insurance under Workplace 2; and that he received wages from Workplace 2, the employee appears to have entered into an employment relationship with Workplace 2. Since there are no objective circumstances or indications from which it can be inferred that the employer, i.e., Workplace 1, actually used the employee’s labor, it is difficult to find that an employment relationship was formed between the parties, and therefore the employer is deemed to lack standing as a party.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
In light of the facts that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 are engaged in different lines of business and are registered as separate corporations; that recruitment, execution of employment contracts, wage payment, and reporting for the four major social insurances were carried out separately by workplace; that tax and accounting were handled independently for each workplace; and that there were indications that HR and labor management were independently administered by workplace, it is difficult to conclude that Workplace 1 and Workplace 2 constitute a single business. Considering that the employee performed only the e‑cigarette inventory management work, which is the business of Workplace 2; that the employee was registered for employment insurance under Workplace 2; and that he received wages from Workplace 2, the employee appears to have entered into an employment relationship with Workplace 2. Since there are no objective circumstances or indications from which it can be inferred that the employer, i.e., Workplace 1, actually used the employee’s labor, it is difficult to find that an employment relationship was formed between the parties, and therefore the employer is deemed to lack standing as a party. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case No.: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, standing as employer (separate corporation – e‑cigarette inventory management), 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, “Forced Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to standing as employer (separate corporation – e‑cigarette inventory management) can be found under “List of Decisions on Standing as Employer (Separate Corporation – E‑Cigarette Inventory Management).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
