Corporate trends / Performance record
Whether a Dismissal Exists (Daily Workers Paid on a One‑Day Basis): Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 223)
- Date2026/02/21 04:24
- Read 209
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the issue of “whether a dismissal exists (daily work with wages paid on a one‑day basis)” was concluded by upholding the first‑instance decision.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae1277 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 10, 2025 · Result: First‑instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issue: Considering that, during the worker’s period of employment, wages for 63 working days were each paid on the day following each working day on a one‑day basis (63 separate payments), that wages were paid only for actual days worked, and that the worker was managed as a daily worker without enrollment in the four major social insurances, the employment contract in this case constitutes a daily employment contract. Accordingly, the contract is deemed to terminate upon completion of each one‑day work period, and therefore no dismissal of the worker exists.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal remedy re‑examination case before the Labor Relations Commission, the central issues were whether the worker’s claim of unfair dismissal was valid and whether, as the employer argued, the daily employment contract had simply come to an end.
The worker worked a total of 63 days over a certain period. The employer paid one day’s wages on the day following each working day and managed the worker as a daily worker without enrolling the worker in the four major social insurances. Against this background, the dispute centered on whether the subsequent termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or a mere expiration of the contract.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where wages are paid on a one‑day basis and the worker repeatedly works without being enrolled in the four major social insurances, is the employment contract a daily employment contract that terminates each day, or does a continuous employment relationship exist such that the employer’s act constitutes a dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel held that the employment relationship in this case constituted a daily employment contract, in light of the following: wages for the worker’s 63 working days were paid individually on a one‑day basis on the day following each working day (63 separate payments), wages were paid only for days actually worked, and the worker was managed as a daily worker without enrollment in the four major social insurances.
The decision found that, because the employment contract was deemed to terminate at the end of each one‑day work period, no dismissal itself existed, and therefore unfair dismissal could not be established.
Furthermore, even assuming that the worker did not qualify as a daily worker, the Commission found that: (i) the employer had instructed the worker on three occasions to work at a different workplace, (ii) the worker refused to move to the other workplace and appears to have quit voluntarily, and (iii) it was difficult, based on objective circumstances, to recognize any explicit or implicit intention on the part of the employer to terminate the employment relationship. On this basis, the Commission held that it could not be concluded that the employer had an intention to dismiss.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, it is important to recognize that the likelihood of obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal can vary significantly depending on whether the working arrangement is classified as daily employment or as fixed‑term/indefinite‑term employment premised on continuous service.
In particular, where the outward management appears to be that of a daily worker—such as wages being paid on a one‑day basis, wages being paid only for days actually worked, and no enrollment in the four major social insurances—the worker must also prove that there was a clear expression of the employer’s intention to dismiss.
Accordingly, if you intend to contest unfair dismissal in a similar situation, it is crucial to systematically secure, in advance, evidence that can prove both a “continuous employment relationship” and the “employer’s unilateral intention to terminate,” such as text messages/KakaoTalk messages, work schedules, records of assignment instructions, and attendance patterns.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when workers are managed as daily workers but in reality are used over a long period on a regular and continuous basis, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may re‑characterize the relationship as continuous employment rather than daily employment. If employment contracts, wage payment methods, practices regarding designation and assignment of working days, and social insurance enrollment status are not aligned and consistent, there is a high risk that future disputes may arise over unfair dismissal, employee status, or length of service.
In addition, as in this case, when issuing instructions for transfer or reassignment to another workplace, employers should manage the content and reasons for the instructions, as well as the circumstances of the worker’s refusal, in written or electronic form so that objective records remain. Such records can serve as key evidence to demonstrate that the employer had no intention to dismiss.
For both workers and employers in this type of case, what is critical is understanding that the determination of whether unfair dismissal is recognized depends not only on whether the arrangement is formally labeled as daily employment, but also on how the relationship is actually operated in practice. From the early stages, it is very important for both sides to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to organize the facts and evidence, both for preventing disputes and for responding effectively when they arise.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Considering that, during the worker’s period of employment, wages for 63 working days were each paid on the day following each working day on a one‑day basis (63 separate payments), that wages were paid only for actual days worked, and that the worker was managed as a daily worker without enrollment in the four major social insurances, the employment contract in this case constitutes a daily employment contract. Accordingly, the contract is deemed to terminate upon completion of each one‑day work period, and therefore no dismissal of the worker exists.
Even if the worker were not to be regarded as a daily worker, the employer instructed the worker on three occasions to work at another workplace, but the worker refused to move to the other workplace and appears to have quit voluntarily. It cannot be concluded that the employer had an intention to terminate the employment relationship with the worker.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Considering that, during the worker’s period of employment, wages for 63 working days were each paid on the day following each working day on a one‑day basis (63 separate payments), that wages were paid only for actual days worked, and that the worker was managed as a daily worker without enrollment in the four major social insurances, the employment contract in this case constitutes a daily employment contract. Accordingly, the contract is deemed to terminate upon completion of each one‑day work period, and therefore no dismissal of the worker exists.
Even if the worker were not to be regarded as a daily worker, the employer instructed the worker on three occasions to work at another workplace, but the worker refused to move to the other workplace and appears to have quit voluntarily. It cannot be concluded that the employer had an intention to terminate the employment relationship with the worker. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status and Renewal Dismissal (Executive Appointment Contract)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non‑Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Performance Evaluation · Defect in Consent to Work Rules)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, whether a dismissal exists (daily work with wages paid on a one‑day basis), 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 one of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status and Renewal Dismissal (Executive Appointment Contract),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to whether a dismissal exists (daily work with wages paid on a one‑day basis) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Whether a Dismissal Exists (Daily Work with Wages Paid on a One‑Day Basis).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the issue of “whether a dismissal exists (daily work with wages paid on a one‑day basis)” was concluded by upholding the first‑instance decision.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae1277 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 10, 2025 · Result: First‑instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issue: Considering that, during the worker’s period of employment, wages for 63 working days were each paid on the day following each working day on a one‑day basis (63 separate payments), that wages were paid only for actual days worked, and that the worker was managed as a daily worker without enrollment in the four major social insurances, the employment contract in this case constitutes a daily employment contract. Accordingly, the contract is deemed to terminate upon completion of each one‑day work period, and therefore no dismissal of the worker exists.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal remedy re‑examination case before the Labor Relations Commission, the central issues were whether the worker’s claim of unfair dismissal was valid and whether, as the employer argued, the daily employment contract had simply come to an end.
The worker worked a total of 63 days over a certain period. The employer paid one day’s wages on the day following each working day and managed the worker as a daily worker without enrolling the worker in the four major social insurances. Against this background, the dispute centered on whether the subsequent termination of the employment relationship constituted a dismissal or a mere expiration of the contract.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where wages are paid on a one‑day basis and the worker repeatedly works without being enrolled in the four major social insurances, is the employment contract a daily employment contract that terminates each day, or does a continuous employment relationship exist such that the employer’s act constitutes a dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel held that the employment relationship in this case constituted a daily employment contract, in light of the following: wages for the worker’s 63 working days were paid individually on a one‑day basis on the day following each working day (63 separate payments), wages were paid only for days actually worked, and the worker was managed as a daily worker without enrollment in the four major social insurances.
The decision found that, because the employment contract was deemed to terminate at the end of each one‑day work period, no dismissal itself existed, and therefore unfair dismissal could not be established.
Furthermore, even assuming that the worker did not qualify as a daily worker, the Commission found that: (i) the employer had instructed the worker on three occasions to work at a different workplace, (ii) the worker refused to move to the other workplace and appears to have quit voluntarily, and (iii) it was difficult, based on objective circumstances, to recognize any explicit or implicit intention on the part of the employer to terminate the employment relationship. On this basis, the Commission held that it could not be concluded that the employer had an intention to dismiss.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s standpoint, it is important to recognize that the likelihood of obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal can vary significantly depending on whether the working arrangement is classified as daily employment or as fixed‑term/indefinite‑term employment premised on continuous service.
In particular, where the outward management appears to be that of a daily worker—such as wages being paid on a one‑day basis, wages being paid only for days actually worked, and no enrollment in the four major social insurances—the worker must also prove that there was a clear expression of the employer’s intention to dismiss.
Accordingly, if you intend to contest unfair dismissal in a similar situation, it is crucial to systematically secure, in advance, evidence that can prove both a “continuous employment relationship” and the “employer’s unilateral intention to terminate,” such as text messages/KakaoTalk messages, work schedules, records of assignment instructions, and attendance patterns.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when workers are managed as daily workers but in reality are used over a long period on a regular and continuous basis, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may re‑characterize the relationship as continuous employment rather than daily employment. If employment contracts, wage payment methods, practices regarding designation and assignment of working days, and social insurance enrollment status are not aligned and consistent, there is a high risk that future disputes may arise over unfair dismissal, employee status, or length of service.
In addition, as in this case, when issuing instructions for transfer or reassignment to another workplace, employers should manage the content and reasons for the instructions, as well as the circumstances of the worker’s refusal, in written or electronic form so that objective records remain. Such records can serve as key evidence to demonstrate that the employer had no intention to dismiss.
For both workers and employers in this type of case, what is critical is understanding that the determination of whether unfair dismissal is recognized depends not only on whether the arrangement is formally labeled as daily employment, but also on how the relationship is actually operated in practice. From the early stages, it is very important for both sides to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to organize the facts and evidence, both for preventing disputes and for responding effectively when they arise.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Considering that, during the worker’s period of employment, wages for 63 working days were each paid on the day following each working day on a one‑day basis (63 separate payments), that wages were paid only for actual days worked, and that the worker was managed as a daily worker without enrollment in the four major social insurances, the employment contract in this case constitutes a daily employment contract. Accordingly, the contract is deemed to terminate upon completion of each one‑day work period, and therefore no dismissal of the worker exists.
Even if the worker were not to be regarded as a daily worker, the employer instructed the worker on three occasions to work at another workplace, but the worker refused to move to the other workplace and appears to have quit voluntarily. It cannot be concluded that the employer had an intention to terminate the employment relationship with the worker.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Considering that, during the worker’s period of employment, wages for 63 working days were each paid on the day following each working day on a one‑day basis (63 separate payments), that wages were paid only for actual days worked, and that the worker was managed as a daily worker without enrollment in the four major social insurances, the employment contract in this case constitutes a daily employment contract. Accordingly, the contract is deemed to terminate upon completion of each one‑day work period, and therefore no dismissal of the worker exists.
Even if the worker were not to be regarded as a daily worker, the employer instructed the worker on three occasions to work at another workplace, but the worker refused to move to the other workplace and appears to have quit voluntarily. It cannot be concluded that the employer had an intention to terminate the employment relationship with the worker. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status and Renewal Dismissal (Executive Appointment Contract)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non‑Existence of Grounds for Disciplinary Action (Performance Evaluation · Defect in Consent to Work Rules)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, whether a dismissal exists (daily work with wages paid on a one‑day basis), 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 one of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status and Renewal Dismissal (Executive Appointment Contract),” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to whether a dismissal exists (daily work with wages paid on a one‑day basis) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Whether a Dismissal Exists (Daily Work with Wages Paid on a One‑Day Basis).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
