Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Employer Status and Succession of Employment (Conversion to Self‑Management in Apartment Complexes)” (Unfair Dismissal 353)
- Date2026/04/07 04:04
- Read 173
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that concluded by upholding the first‑instance ruling on the issues of “employer status and succession of employment (conversion to self‑management in apartment complexes).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae1688 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.20 · Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation where an apartment complex, which had been managed under an outsourced management system with a housing management company, converted to a self‑management system. In the course of this conversion, employees belonging to the existing outsourced management company claimed that they had been dismissed and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employees argued that the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council was their actual employer and that they should therefore contest the unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission against that council. By contrast, the employer side denied party standing, asserting that the council was not a party to any employment contract.
The Labor Relations Commission, after proceedings up to re‑examination before the Central Labor Relations Commission, held that the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council did not have standing as an “employer” under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore did not proceed to a substantive determination on whether the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in the process of converting from outsourced management to self‑management, the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council bears employer status and a duty to succeed to the employment of employees belonging to the outsourced management company, and thus has party standing as the proper respondent to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel noted that all of the employees had executed employment contracts with the outsourced management company; that the outsourced management company exercised personnel authority, including obtaining letters of resignation from all employees except the employees in this case; that the fact that the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council paid the personnel expenses of the management office staff appeared to be a result of the management‑fee execution structure designed to control the management fees paid by residents; that, although the Residents’ Representative Council had been involved in certain personnel and work matters as evidenced by written statements of fact, there was also ample evidence that the outsourced management company directly directed and supervised the employees, making it difficult to regard the employer status of the outsourced management company as having been reduced to a mere formality; and that, when changing from outsourced management to self‑management, there is no statutory obligation to succeed to employment, nor was there any special agreement on succession of employment between the parties.
In light of the above, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that an implied employment relationship had been formed between the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council and the employees belonging to the outsourced management company, and further held that no obligation to succeed to employment arose upon conversion to self‑management.
As a result, the dismissal in this case was ultimately characterized as one where the application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed against the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council lacked party standing. On the premise that employer status was not established, the employees’ claims were rejected without any substantive determination on the justifiability of the dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important, in the course of changes to the apartment management structure, to first clearly identify who the “actual employer” is—namely, with whom the employment contract was concluded and who in substance exercised personnel authority, the right to direct and supervise work, and the authority to pay wages. The mere fact that the management system changes from outsourced management to self‑management does not mean that the employment of employees belonging to the existing outsourced management company is automatically succeeded to by the Residents’ Representative Council. Employees should therefore thoroughly secure concrete materials showing whether there is any separate agreement on succession of employment, any express or implied manifestation of intent by the Residents’ Representative Council to succeed to employment, or whether the Residents’ Representative Council has in practice functioned as the employer.
In addition, when filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is essential to correctly identify the counterparty who can be regarded as the actual employer. To that end, employees should systematically collect and organize evidence that can support employer status, such as the outsourced management contract, personnel‑related documents, pay slips, and work‑instruction emails or text messages.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the perspective of the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council or the outsourced management company, the key to reducing similar disputes is to clearly distinguish in writing, in the outsourced management contract and in the process of conversion to self‑management, who holds personnel authority, labor‑management direction and control, and wage‑payment authority. Even if the Residents’ Representative Council exercises authority to approve execution of management fees, decide personnel‑expense budgets, or “approve/request” certain personnel matters, such authority should remain within the scope of controlling financial and management risks in its capacity as the principal. As far as possible, direct instructions regarding hiring, discipline, and dismissal of individual employees should be exercised by the outsourced management company, and internal practices should be aligned accordingly.
Furthermore, when converting from outsourced management to self‑management or changing management companies, it is advisable, for the protection of employees and prevention of disputes, to consider explicitly agreeing upon and publicly announcing in advance whether employment will be succeeded to, which employees will be covered, and on what conditions. In this process, issues such as unfair dismissal, redundancy (collective dismissal), and deterioration of working conditions may become entangled, so it is recommended to consult sufficiently in advance with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to design appropriate procedures and contractual language.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council has party standing
(1) The employees executed employment contracts with the outsourced management company, and the outsourced management company obtained letters of resignation from all employees other than the employees in this case;
(2) Although the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council paid the personnel expenses of the management office staff, this appears to have been a result of the essential purpose of strictly managing the management fees paid by the residents;
(3) Based on written statements of fact submitted by the parties, while there were aspects in which the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council was involved, there were also facts showing that the outsourced management company directly intervened with respect to its own employees, making it difficult to regard the outsourced management company as having been reduced to a mere shell;
(4) When changing from outsourced management to self‑management, there is no obligation to succeed to employment, and there was no special agreement on succession of employment between the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council and the outsourced management company.
In light of all of the above, it is difficult to find that an implied employment relationship was formed between the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council and the employees belonging to the outsourced management company, and there is no obligation to succeed to employment upon conversion to self‑management. Accordingly, the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council does not have party standing, and there is no need to further examine the justifiability of the dismissal.
3. Gist of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council has party standing
(1) The employees executed employment contracts with the outsourced management company, and the outsourced management company obtained letters of resignation from all employees other than the employees in this case;
(2) Although the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council paid the personnel expenses of the management office staff, this appears to have been a result of the essential purpose of strictly managing the management fees paid by the residents;
(3) Based on written statements of fact submitted by the parties, while there were aspects in which the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council was involved, there were also facts showing that the outsourced management company directly intervened with respect to its own employees, making it difficult to regard the outsourced management company as having been reduced to a mere shell;
(4) When changing from outsourced management to self‑management, there is no obligation to succeed to employment, and there was no special agreement on succession of employment between the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council and the outsourced management company.
In light of all of the above, it is difficult to find that an implied employment relationship was formed between the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council and the employees belonging to the outsourced management company, and there is no obligation to succeed to employment upon conversion to self‑management. Accordingly, the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council does not have party standing, and there is no need to further examine the justifiability of the dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissal of application
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employer status and succession of employment (conversion to self‑management in apartment complexes), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Denial of Employee Status (Senior Pastor)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employer status and succession of employment (conversion to self‑management in apartment complexes) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Employer Status and Succession of Employment (Conversion to Self‑Management in Apartment Complexes)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that concluded by upholding the first‑instance ruling on the issues of “employer status and succession of employment (conversion to self‑management in apartment complexes).”
Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae1688 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.20 · Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation where an apartment complex, which had been managed under an outsourced management system with a housing management company, converted to a self‑management system. In the course of this conversion, employees belonging to the existing outsourced management company claimed that they had been dismissed and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The employees argued that the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council was their actual employer and that they should therefore contest the unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission against that council. By contrast, the employer side denied party standing, asserting that the council was not a party to any employment contract.
The Labor Relations Commission, after proceedings up to re‑examination before the Central Labor Relations Commission, held that the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council did not have standing as an “employer” under the Labor Standards Act, and therefore did not proceed to a substantive determination on whether the dismissal was unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in the process of converting from outsourced management to self‑management, the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council bears employer status and a duty to succeed to the employment of employees belonging to the outsourced management company, and thus has party standing as the proper respondent to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel noted that all of the employees had executed employment contracts with the outsourced management company; that the outsourced management company exercised personnel authority, including obtaining letters of resignation from all employees except the employees in this case; that the fact that the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council paid the personnel expenses of the management office staff appeared to be a result of the management‑fee execution structure designed to control the management fees paid by residents; that, although the Residents’ Representative Council had been involved in certain personnel and work matters as evidenced by written statements of fact, there was also ample evidence that the outsourced management company directly directed and supervised the employees, making it difficult to regard the employer status of the outsourced management company as having been reduced to a mere formality; and that, when changing from outsourced management to self‑management, there is no statutory obligation to succeed to employment, nor was there any special agreement on succession of employment between the parties.
In light of the above, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that an implied employment relationship had been formed between the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council and the employees belonging to the outsourced management company, and further held that no obligation to succeed to employment arose upon conversion to self‑management.
As a result, the dismissal in this case was ultimately characterized as one where the application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed against the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council lacked party standing. On the premise that employer status was not established, the employees’ claims were rejected without any substantive determination on the justifiability of the dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is important, in the course of changes to the apartment management structure, to first clearly identify who the “actual employer” is—namely, with whom the employment contract was concluded and who in substance exercised personnel authority, the right to direct and supervise work, and the authority to pay wages. The mere fact that the management system changes from outsourced management to self‑management does not mean that the employment of employees belonging to the existing outsourced management company is automatically succeeded to by the Residents’ Representative Council. Employees should therefore thoroughly secure concrete materials showing whether there is any separate agreement on succession of employment, any express or implied manifestation of intent by the Residents’ Representative Council to succeed to employment, or whether the Residents’ Representative Council has in practice functioned as the employer.
In addition, when filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is essential to correctly identify the counterparty who can be regarded as the actual employer. To that end, employees should systematically collect and organize evidence that can support employer status, such as the outsourced management contract, personnel‑related documents, pay slips, and work‑instruction emails or text messages.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the perspective of the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council or the outsourced management company, the key to reducing similar disputes is to clearly distinguish in writing, in the outsourced management contract and in the process of conversion to self‑management, who holds personnel authority, labor‑management direction and control, and wage‑payment authority. Even if the Residents’ Representative Council exercises authority to approve execution of management fees, decide personnel‑expense budgets, or “approve/request” certain personnel matters, such authority should remain within the scope of controlling financial and management risks in its capacity as the principal. As far as possible, direct instructions regarding hiring, discipline, and dismissal of individual employees should be exercised by the outsourced management company, and internal practices should be aligned accordingly.
Furthermore, when converting from outsourced management to self‑management or changing management companies, it is advisable, for the protection of employees and prevention of disputes, to consider explicitly agreeing upon and publicly announcing in advance whether employment will be succeeded to, which employees will be covered, and on what conditions. In this process, issues such as unfair dismissal, redundancy (collective dismissal), and deterioration of working conditions may become entangled, so it is recommended to consult sufficiently in advance with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to design appropriate procedures and contractual language.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council has party standing
(1) The employees executed employment contracts with the outsourced management company, and the outsourced management company obtained letters of resignation from all employees other than the employees in this case;
(2) Although the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council paid the personnel expenses of the management office staff, this appears to have been a result of the essential purpose of strictly managing the management fees paid by the residents;
(3) Based on written statements of fact submitted by the parties, while there were aspects in which the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council was involved, there were also facts showing that the outsourced management company directly intervened with respect to its own employees, making it difficult to regard the outsourced management company as having been reduced to a mere shell;
(4) When changing from outsourced management to self‑management, there is no obligation to succeed to employment, and there was no special agreement on succession of employment between the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council and the outsourced management company.
In light of all of the above, it is difficult to find that an implied employment relationship was formed between the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council and the employees belonging to the outsourced management company, and there is no obligation to succeed to employment upon conversion to self‑management. Accordingly, the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council does not have party standing, and there is no need to further examine the justifiability of the dismissal.
3. Gist of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council has party standing
(1) The employees executed employment contracts with the outsourced management company, and the outsourced management company obtained letters of resignation from all employees other than the employees in this case;
(2) Although the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council paid the personnel expenses of the management office staff, this appears to have been a result of the essential purpose of strictly managing the management fees paid by the residents;
(3) Based on written statements of fact submitted by the parties, while there were aspects in which the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council was involved, there were also facts showing that the outsourced management company directly intervened with respect to its own employees, making it difficult to regard the outsourced management company as having been reduced to a mere shell;
(4) When changing from outsourced management to self‑management, there is no obligation to succeed to employment, and there was no special agreement on succession of employment between the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council and the outsourced management company.
In light of all of the above, it is difficult to find that an implied employment relationship was formed between the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council and the employees belonging to the outsourced management company, and there is no obligation to succeed to employment upon conversion to self‑management. Accordingly, the Apartment Residents’ Representative Council does not have party standing, and there is no need to further examine the justifiability of the dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissal of application
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employer status and succession of employment (conversion to self‑management in apartment complexes), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Denial of Employee Status (Senior Pastor)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employer status and succession of employment (conversion to self‑management in apartment complexes) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions on Employer Status and Succession of Employment (Conversion to Self‑Management in Apartment Complexes)” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
