Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on Employee Status (Fitness Instructor Delegation Agreement) (Unfair Dismissal 417)
- Date2026/04/30 04:09
- Read 138
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision concerning the issue of “employee status (fitness instructor delegation agreement)” in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed).
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae50 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.04.09 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The applicant and the respondent executed an “Instructor Delegation Agreement,” and the remuneration paid to the applicant was calculated in proportion to the actual teaching hours only, with no separate base salary or fixed salary. Although it was acknowledged that the applicant conducted classes at fixed time slots each week and that member reservations, attendance, etc. were handled through an app used by the business, the instructor timetable was arranged in advance through consultation with each individual instructor, and members directly selected the instructor and time slot…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a fitness instructor who had been teaching at a fitness center filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act. However, the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the case on the ground that the applicant did not qualify as an employee. The applicant and the respondent entered into an “Instructor Delegation Agreement,” and the Commission focused its review on whether the substantive nature of this contractual relationship was that of an employment contract.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a fitness instructor who has executed an ‘Instructor Delegation Agreement’ with a fitness center and receives remuneration in proportion to actual teaching hours qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and may therefore apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the applicant and the respondent had, in form, executed an “Instructor Delegation Agreement,” that the remuneration was calculated in proportion to the actual teaching hours and that there was no separate base salary or fixed salary, and that although it was acknowledged that the applicant conducted classes at fixed time slots each week and that member reservations and attendance were handled through an app used by the business, the instructor timetable was arranged in advance through consultation with each individual instructor, and members directly selected the instructor and time slot. Under this operating structure, if no member selected the applicant, the applicant had no obligation to report to work or remain at the business premises.
In light of these circumstances, it was difficult to conclude that the applicant worked under the unilateral and specific direction and supervision of the employer. Even though the delegation agreement contained provisions on reporting absences, attendance management, tidiness, and dress code, these could be viewed as general standards necessary for business operation and member management. Taken together, these factors indicated that the relationship was closer to the relatively independent provision of instruction than to the provision of work in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal at issue did not constitute an unfair dismissal of an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Instructors, coaches, freelancers, and others working under similar delegation or subcontracting arrangements who wish to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission must, regardless of the title of the contract, specifically prove that they in fact provided work continuously at designated times and places under the direction and supervision of the employer. It is important to retain evidence on an ongoing basis regarding factors used to determine employee status, such as whether working hours and workplace were designated, whether other work could be performed concurrently, whether there was an obligation to remain at the workplace even when there were no members or clients, and whether there was a base salary or fixed salary.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
Fitness centers, academies, and various education and leisure businesses that use delegation or subcontracting agreements with instructors should be aware that if the actual operation is the same as an employment relationship, there is a high risk that employee status will be recognized by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. While operating in a manner consistent with the contractual form—such as paying remuneration only for teaching hours, not imposing an obligation to report to work when there are no members, and minimizing specific direction and supervision over the content and method of instruction—you should manage tidiness, dress code, etc. consistently in the contract and in actual practice as general standards for business operation.
In this type of case, determinations of employee status and employer status are directly linked to whether a dismissal is unfair or a redundancy dismissal is lawful. Therefore, from the initial contracting stage, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to design and review the contract structure and actual operation so that they conform to legal principles.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The applicant and the respondent executed an “Instructor Delegation Agreement,” and the remuneration paid to the applicant was calculated in proportion to the actual teaching hours only, with no separate base salary or fixed salary. Although it is acknowledged that the applicant conducted classes at fixed time slots each week and that member reservations and attendance were handled through an app used by the business, the instructor timetable was arranged in advance through consultation with each individual instructor, and the operating structure allowed members to directly select the instructor and time slot. If no member selected the applicant, the applicant had no obligation to report to work or remain at the business premises. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the applicant worked under the unilateral direction and supervision of the respondent. Furthermore, even though the delegation agreement contained provisions on reporting absences, attendance management, tidiness, and dress code, these may be viewed as standards set within the scope necessary for business operation and member management. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided work to the respondent in a subordinate relationship.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The applicant and the respondent executed an “Instructor Delegation Agreement,” and the remuneration paid to the applicant was calculated in proportion to the actual teaching hours only, with no separate base salary or fixed salary. Although it is acknowledged that the applicant conducted classes at fixed time slots each week and that member reservations and attendance were handled through an app used by the business, the instructor timetable was arranged in advance through consultation with each individual instructor, and the operating structure allowed members to directly select the instructor and time slot. If no member selected the applicant, the applicant had no obligation to report to work or remain at the business premises. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the applicant worked under the unilateral direction and supervision of the respondent. Furthermore, even though the delegation agreement contained provisions on reporting absences, attendance management, tidiness, and dress code, these may be viewed as standards set within the scope necessary for business operation and member management. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided work to the respondent in a subordinate relationship. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Fixed-Term Exception (Demonstration Plant)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (fitness instructor delegation agreement), 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, “‘Fixed-Term Exception (Demonstration Plant)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to employee status (fitness instructor delegation agreement) can be viewed together on the “Employee Status (Fitness Instructor Delegation Agreement) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is an unfair dismissal decision concerning the issue of “employee status (fitness instructor delegation agreement)” in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed).
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae50 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.04.09 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The applicant and the respondent executed an “Instructor Delegation Agreement,” and the remuneration paid to the applicant was calculated in proportion to the actual teaching hours only, with no separate base salary or fixed salary. Although it was acknowledged that the applicant conducted classes at fixed time slots each week and that member reservations, attendance, etc. were handled through an app used by the business, the instructor timetable was arranged in advance through consultation with each individual instructor, and members directly selected the instructor and time slot…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a fitness instructor who had been teaching at a fitness center filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act. However, the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the case on the ground that the applicant did not qualify as an employee. The applicant and the respondent entered into an “Instructor Delegation Agreement,” and the Commission focused its review on whether the substantive nature of this contractual relationship was that of an employment contract.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a fitness instructor who has executed an ‘Instructor Delegation Agreement’ with a fitness center and receives remuneration in proportion to actual teaching hours qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and may therefore apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the applicant and the respondent had, in form, executed an “Instructor Delegation Agreement,” that the remuneration was calculated in proportion to the actual teaching hours and that there was no separate base salary or fixed salary, and that although it was acknowledged that the applicant conducted classes at fixed time slots each week and that member reservations and attendance were handled through an app used by the business, the instructor timetable was arranged in advance through consultation with each individual instructor, and members directly selected the instructor and time slot. Under this operating structure, if no member selected the applicant, the applicant had no obligation to report to work or remain at the business premises.
In light of these circumstances, it was difficult to conclude that the applicant worked under the unilateral and specific direction and supervision of the employer. Even though the delegation agreement contained provisions on reporting absences, attendance management, tidiness, and dress code, these could be viewed as general standards necessary for business operation and member management. Taken together, these factors indicated that the relationship was closer to the relatively independent provision of instruction than to the provision of work in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal at issue did not constitute an unfair dismissal of an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Instructors, coaches, freelancers, and others working under similar delegation or subcontracting arrangements who wish to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission must, regardless of the title of the contract, specifically prove that they in fact provided work continuously at designated times and places under the direction and supervision of the employer. It is important to retain evidence on an ongoing basis regarding factors used to determine employee status, such as whether working hours and workplace were designated, whether other work could be performed concurrently, whether there was an obligation to remain at the workplace even when there were no members or clients, and whether there was a base salary or fixed salary.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
Fitness centers, academies, and various education and leisure businesses that use delegation or subcontracting agreements with instructors should be aware that if the actual operation is the same as an employment relationship, there is a high risk that employee status will be recognized by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. While operating in a manner consistent with the contractual form—such as paying remuneration only for teaching hours, not imposing an obligation to report to work when there are no members, and minimizing specific direction and supervision over the content and method of instruction—you should manage tidiness, dress code, etc. consistently in the contract and in actual practice as general standards for business operation.
In this type of case, determinations of employee status and employer status are directly linked to whether a dismissal is unfair or a redundancy dismissal is lawful. Therefore, from the initial contracting stage, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to design and review the contract structure and actual operation so that they conform to legal principles.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The applicant and the respondent executed an “Instructor Delegation Agreement,” and the remuneration paid to the applicant was calculated in proportion to the actual teaching hours only, with no separate base salary or fixed salary. Although it is acknowledged that the applicant conducted classes at fixed time slots each week and that member reservations and attendance were handled through an app used by the business, the instructor timetable was arranged in advance through consultation with each individual instructor, and the operating structure allowed members to directly select the instructor and time slot. If no member selected the applicant, the applicant had no obligation to report to work or remain at the business premises. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the applicant worked under the unilateral direction and supervision of the respondent. Furthermore, even though the delegation agreement contained provisions on reporting absences, attendance management, tidiness, and dress code, these may be viewed as standards set within the scope necessary for business operation and member management. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided work to the respondent in a subordinate relationship.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The applicant and the respondent executed an “Instructor Delegation Agreement,” and the remuneration paid to the applicant was calculated in proportion to the actual teaching hours only, with no separate base salary or fixed salary. Although it is acknowledged that the applicant conducted classes at fixed time slots each week and that member reservations and attendance were handled through an app used by the business, the instructor timetable was arranged in advance through consultation with each individual instructor, and the operating structure allowed members to directly select the instructor and time slot. If no member selected the applicant, the applicant had no obligation to report to work or remain at the business premises. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the applicant worked under the unilateral direction and supervision of the respondent. Furthermore, even though the delegation agreement contained provisions on reporting absences, attendance management, tidiness, and dress code, these may be viewed as standards set within the scope necessary for business operation and member management. Considering these circumstances as a whole, it is difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided work to the respondent in a subordinate relationship. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Fixed-Term Exception (Demonstration Plant)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (fitness instructor delegation agreement), 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, “‘Fixed-Term Exception (Demonstration Plant)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to employee status (fitness instructor delegation agreement) can be viewed together on the “Employee Status (Fitness Instructor Delegation Agreement) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
