Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Non-Existence of Standing as a Party (Denial of Implied Employment Contract)’ in Unfair Dismissal Relief Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 345)
- Date2026/04/04 04:09
- Read 168
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of standing as a party (denial of implied employment contract).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 9193 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.24 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee was in an employment contract relationship with OOOOOO, and an implied employment contract with the employer was not recognized. Accordingly, the employer could not be regarded as an employer in a position to comply with a remedial order of the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore did not have standing as a party.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal against the company (respondent) that the employee regarded as the “substantive employer.” However, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission denied that the company had employer status and dismissed the application. The Commission found that the employee was in fact in an employment contract relationship with a third legal entity (OOOOOO), and that no implied employment contract relationship could be recognized between the employee and the respondent company. It therefore held that the respondent did not have standing as an “employer” capable of implementing a remedial order issued by the Labor Relations Commission.
Cases in which employer status and standing as a party are at issue in applications for remedy for unfair dismissal frequently arise in the context of indirect employment, sham subcontracting, and personnel transfers within corporate groups. In practice, when handling unfair dismissal matters and Labor Relations Commission procedures, careful legal analysis by experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& is particularly important.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, where an employee is formally employed by another company, an implied employment contract relationship can nonetheless be recognized with the company alleged to be the substantive employer, and, consequently, whether that company can be deemed to have standing as a party in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee had expressly entered into an employment contract with OOOOOO; that it was difficult to regard the respondent company as an employer that exercised direct authority over the employee in terms of personnel, wages, and labor management; and that there was insufficient basis to find that a relationship of direction and supervision for the purpose of wage payment had been formed between the respondent and the employee.
Accordingly, it held that it was difficult to find that an implied employment contract relationship had been established between the employee and the respondent, and therefore the respondent could not be regarded as a “business owner or employer” in a position to implement a remedial order for unfair dismissal issued by the Labor Relations Commission.
The dismissal in this case was therefore viewed as a matter in which the employer had been incorrectly identified, making it impossible to determine whether the dismissal itself was unfair. The application for remedy against the respondent was dismissed on the ground that the respondent lacked standing as a party.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where the company that actually directs and supervises the employee, the company that pays wages, and the company with which the employment contract is formally concluded are different entities, it is essential to clarify “who the real employer (business owner) is” before filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission does not look only at the formal employment contract, but determines employer status comprehensively by examining who determines the content of the work, designates working hours and place of work, pays wages, and actually handles personnel and labor management.
Accordingly, in situations where indirect employment or sham subcontracting is suspected, it is necessary to secure in advance evidence showing who actually exercised direction and supervision, who managed attendance, leave, and discipline, and in whose name the employer is indicated on pay statements and the four major social insurances. This will help prepare to prove the existence of an implied employment contract relationship.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, if it in fact manages personnel and labor while having employees formally enter into employment contracts under the name of another company, it must be borne in mind that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may recognize an implied employment contract and broadly construe employer status. In particular, in principal–subcontractor structures, intra-group personnel support, and mixed dispatch/subcontracting arrangements, it is important to clarify who bears responsibility for personnel authority and wage payment, and to ensure that written contracts and actual operations are aligned.
If the employer is incorrectly identified in an unfair dismissal dispute, the proceedings may be prolonged, or new disputes may arise against another legal entity. Therefore, before taking any personnel measures, the company should internally clarify and document “who is the employer and contracting party in the employment relationship with the employee concerned.”
In order to prevail in this type of case, it is essential in practice to have an accurate understanding of the case law on “employer” status and “implied employment contracts,” and to carefully organize and prove the facts in a manner consistent with that legal framework.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee was in an employment contract relationship with OOOOOO, and an implied employment contract relationship with the employer was not recognized. Accordingly, the employer could not be regarded as an employer in a position to comply with a remedial order of the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore did not have standing as a party.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee was in an employment contract relationship with OOOOOO, and an implied employment contract relationship with the employer was not recognized. Accordingly, the employer could not be regarded as an employer in a position to comply with a remedial order of the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore did not have standing as a party. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Breach of Duty of Obedience (Reposting of Job Advertisement)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of standing as a party (denial of implied employment contract), 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 Decision on ‘Breach of Duty of Obedience (Reposting of Job Advertisement)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of standing as a party (denial of implied employment contract) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Standing as a Party (Denial of Implied Employment Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of standing as a party (denial of implied employment contract).”
Decision Committee: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025 Unfair Dismissal 9193 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.24 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee was in an employment contract relationship with OOOOOO, and an implied employment contract with the employer was not recognized. Accordingly, the employer could not be regarded as an employer in a position to comply with a remedial order of the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore did not have standing as a party.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal against the company (respondent) that the employee regarded as the “substantive employer.” However, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission denied that the company had employer status and dismissed the application. The Commission found that the employee was in fact in an employment contract relationship with a third legal entity (OOOOOO), and that no implied employment contract relationship could be recognized between the employee and the respondent company. It therefore held that the respondent did not have standing as an “employer” capable of implementing a remedial order issued by the Labor Relations Commission.
Cases in which employer status and standing as a party are at issue in applications for remedy for unfair dismissal frequently arise in the context of indirect employment, sham subcontracting, and personnel transfers within corporate groups. In practice, when handling unfair dismissal matters and Labor Relations Commission procedures, careful legal analysis by experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& is particularly important.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, where an employee is formally employed by another company, an implied employment contract relationship can nonetheless be recognized with the company alleged to be the substantive employer, and, consequently, whether that company can be deemed to have standing as a party in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employee had expressly entered into an employment contract with OOOOOO; that it was difficult to regard the respondent company as an employer that exercised direct authority over the employee in terms of personnel, wages, and labor management; and that there was insufficient basis to find that a relationship of direction and supervision for the purpose of wage payment had been formed between the respondent and the employee.
Accordingly, it held that it was difficult to find that an implied employment contract relationship had been established between the employee and the respondent, and therefore the respondent could not be regarded as a “business owner or employer” in a position to implement a remedial order for unfair dismissal issued by the Labor Relations Commission.
The dismissal in this case was therefore viewed as a matter in which the employer had been incorrectly identified, making it impossible to determine whether the dismissal itself was unfair. The application for remedy against the respondent was dismissed on the ground that the respondent lacked standing as a party.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where the company that actually directs and supervises the employee, the company that pays wages, and the company with which the employment contract is formally concluded are different entities, it is essential to clarify “who the real employer (business owner) is” before filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission does not look only at the formal employment contract, but determines employer status comprehensively by examining who determines the content of the work, designates working hours and place of work, pays wages, and actually handles personnel and labor management.
Accordingly, in situations where indirect employment or sham subcontracting is suspected, it is necessary to secure in advance evidence showing who actually exercised direction and supervision, who managed attendance, leave, and discipline, and in whose name the employer is indicated on pay statements and the four major social insurances. This will help prepare to prove the existence of an implied employment contract relationship.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, if it in fact manages personnel and labor while having employees formally enter into employment contracts under the name of another company, it must be borne in mind that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may recognize an implied employment contract and broadly construe employer status. In particular, in principal–subcontractor structures, intra-group personnel support, and mixed dispatch/subcontracting arrangements, it is important to clarify who bears responsibility for personnel authority and wage payment, and to ensure that written contracts and actual operations are aligned.
If the employer is incorrectly identified in an unfair dismissal dispute, the proceedings may be prolonged, or new disputes may arise against another legal entity. Therefore, before taking any personnel measures, the company should internally clarify and document “who is the employer and contracting party in the employment relationship with the employee concerned.”
In order to prevail in this type of case, it is essential in practice to have an accurate understanding of the case law on “employer” status and “implied employment contracts,” and to carefully organize and prove the facts in a manner consistent with that legal framework.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee was in an employment contract relationship with OOOOOO, and an implied employment contract relationship with the employer was not recognized. Accordingly, the employer could not be regarded as an employer in a position to comply with a remedial order of the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore did not have standing as a party.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee was in an employment contract relationship with OOOOOO, and an implied employment contract relationship with the employer was not recognized. Accordingly, the employer could not be regarded as an employer in a position to comply with a remedial order of the Labor Relations Commission, and therefore did not have standing as a party. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Breach of Duty of Obedience (Reposting of Job Advertisement)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of standing as a party (denial of implied employment contract), 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 Decision on ‘Breach of Duty of Obedience (Reposting of Job Advertisement)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of standing as a party (denial of implied employment contract) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Standing as a Party (Denial of Implied Employment Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
