Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Employee Status (Part-Time Advisor)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 450)
- Date2026/05/13 04:09
- Read 107
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employee status (part-time advisor).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae166 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.03.25 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The individual in question was a part-time advisor who was not bound by fixed working hours or workplace, autonomously determined how to carry out the assigned investment-attraction tasks in consultation with company personnel, and received remuneration that was more in the nature of compensation for being appointed as an advisor from a particular institution rather than consideration for labor itself, with fees under the advisory appointment agreement determined in proportion to performance. The employment co…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a person appointed as a part-time advisor who filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the termination of the advisory appointment by the company constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its examination on whether the applicant’s status fell within the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. It ultimately found in favor of the employer and dismissed the application for relief.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a person who, as a part-time advisor, is not bound by working hours or workplace, autonomously performs investment-attraction work, and is paid remuneration based on performance qualifies as an ‘employee’ under the Labor Standards Act, and thus may be the subject of an unfair dismissal relief application.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer did not designate working hours or workplace and the applicant was not bound by any such constraints; that the content and manner of the investment-attraction work performed by the applicant were determined by the applicant, with the company only involved at the level of consultation and coordination; and that the remuneration was more in the nature of compensation for appointing personnel from a particular institution as an “advisor” and performance-based advisory fees under the advisory appointment agreement, rather than consideration for the provision of labor itself. In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to view the applicant as having provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages.
In addition, although the formal employment contract stated a one-year contract term, the parties in practice maintained their relationship on the assumption of a two-year appointment period, and those terms and conditions were more consistent with the contents of the advisory appointment agreement. Taking this into account, the Commission found that, in substance, the relationship was closer to an executive-level advisory appointment agreement than to an employment contract.
Ultimately, by reference to the Supreme Court’s criteria for determining employee status (existence of work instructions and supervision, constraints on working hours and workplace, nature of remuneration, exclusivity, etc.), the Labor Relations Commission found it difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and viewed the applicant as having performed duties autonomously in the capacity of an executive. Accordingly, it held that the application for relief from unfair dismissal was either procedurally improper or without merit.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Those working under titles such as part-time advisor, advisory committee member, or under high-value, performance-based appointment agreements should be aware that employee status is not automatically recognized based solely on the title of the contract. You should bear in mind that the following factors are considered comprehensively: whether you are actually subject to the employer’s specific instructions and supervision; whether you are bound by working hours and workplace; whether your remuneration is fixed wages or performance/appointment-based fees; whether you are enrolled in the four major social insurances; and whether you work exclusively for the company.
If you are considering filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal, it is important to prepare in advance materials that can prove whether your work was controlled and managed in a manner similar to that of ordinary employees and officers, whether you were subject to the company’s rules of employment and HR regulations, and whether you were in practice included in performance evaluations and disciplinary procedures.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, if you in substance require part-time advisors, consultants, outside directors, etc. to report to work and follow work instructions in the same way as employees, while maintaining only the formal label of an “appointment agreement,” you must recognize that disputes over unfair dismissal, retirement benefits, and the four major social insurances may arise in the future. When utilizing advisory appointment agreements, you should clearly define the scope of work, the performance-based remuneration structure, and the autonomy regarding working hours and workplace, and operate the system so that, in substance, it is clear that these individuals hold a status separate from that governed by the rules of employment and HR regulations.
You should also specify in detail in the appointment agreement the contract term, criteria for calculating remuneration, and grounds and procedures for termination. This will enable the Labor Relations Commission or the courts to clearly ascertain the substantive nature of the relationship in the event of a dispute and reduce confusion with redundancy dismissals or disciplinary dismissals.
If, in cases of this type, you obtain prior assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and review your contract structures and operational practices in advance, you can significantly reduce the likelihood of unfair dismissal disputes. As the Labor Relations Commission’s decisions demonstrate, what matters most is not form but contract design and operation that reflect the substantive reality.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the worker, as a part-time advisor, was not bound by fixed working hours or workplace; that the worker autonomously determined how to carry out the assigned investment-attraction tasks and proceeded with them in consultation with the company’s personnel; that the remuneration received by the worker was more in the nature of compensation for appointing an employee from a particular institution as an advisor than consideration for labor itself, and that the remuneration for the appointed advisory work was determined in proportion to performance under the advisory appointment agreement; and that the one-year contract term stipulated in the employment contract differed from the two-year contract term acknowledged by the parties in this case and that, rather, the advisory appointment agreement matched the contract term and conditions agreed upon by the parties, the Commission determined that the worker held the status of an executive who performed duties autonomously under the advisory appointment agreement.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the worker, as a part-time advisor, was not bound by fixed working hours or workplace; that the worker autonomously determined how to carry out the assigned investment-attraction tasks and proceeded with them in consultation with the company’s personnel; that the remuneration received by the worker was more in the nature of compensation for appointing an employee from a particular institution as an advisor than consideration for labor itself, and that the remuneration for the appointed advisory work was determined in proportion to performance under the advisory appointment agreement; and that the one-year contract term stipulated in the employment contract differed from the two-year contract term acknowledged by the parties in this case and that, rather, the advisory appointment agreement matched the contract term and conditions agreed upon by the parties, the Commission determined that the worker held the status of an executive who performed duties autonomously under the advisory appointment agreement. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Refusal to Renew (General Manager · Conflict over Sexual Harassment Allegations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (part-time advisor), 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, “‘Refusal to Renew (General Manager · Conflict over Sexual Harassment Allegations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employee status (part-time advisor) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Part-Time Advisor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employee status (part-time advisor).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae166 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
2026.03.25 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The individual in question was a part-time advisor who was not bound by fixed working hours or workplace, autonomously determined how to carry out the assigned investment-attraction tasks in consultation with company personnel, and received remuneration that was more in the nature of compensation for being appointed as an advisor from a particular institution rather than consideration for labor itself, with fees under the advisory appointment agreement determined in proportion to performance. The employment co…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a person appointed as a part-time advisor who filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the termination of the advisory appointment by the company constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its examination on whether the applicant’s status fell within the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. It ultimately found in favor of the employer and dismissed the application for relief.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a person who, as a part-time advisor, is not bound by working hours or workplace, autonomously performs investment-attraction work, and is paid remuneration based on performance qualifies as an ‘employee’ under the Labor Standards Act, and thus may be the subject of an unfair dismissal relief application.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer did not designate working hours or workplace and the applicant was not bound by any such constraints; that the content and manner of the investment-attraction work performed by the applicant were determined by the applicant, with the company only involved at the level of consultation and coordination; and that the remuneration was more in the nature of compensation for appointing personnel from a particular institution as an “advisor” and performance-based advisory fees under the advisory appointment agreement, rather than consideration for the provision of labor itself. In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to view the applicant as having provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages.
In addition, although the formal employment contract stated a one-year contract term, the parties in practice maintained their relationship on the assumption of a two-year appointment period, and those terms and conditions were more consistent with the contents of the advisory appointment agreement. Taking this into account, the Commission found that, in substance, the relationship was closer to an executive-level advisory appointment agreement than to an employment contract.
Ultimately, by reference to the Supreme Court’s criteria for determining employee status (existence of work instructions and supervision, constraints on working hours and workplace, nature of remuneration, exclusivity, etc.), the Labor Relations Commission found it difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and viewed the applicant as having performed duties autonomously in the capacity of an executive. Accordingly, it held that the application for relief from unfair dismissal was either procedurally improper or without merit.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Those working under titles such as part-time advisor, advisory committee member, or under high-value, performance-based appointment agreements should be aware that employee status is not automatically recognized based solely on the title of the contract. You should bear in mind that the following factors are considered comprehensively: whether you are actually subject to the employer’s specific instructions and supervision; whether you are bound by working hours and workplace; whether your remuneration is fixed wages or performance/appointment-based fees; whether you are enrolled in the four major social insurances; and whether you work exclusively for the company.
If you are considering filing an application for relief from unfair dismissal, it is important to prepare in advance materials that can prove whether your work was controlled and managed in a manner similar to that of ordinary employees and officers, whether you were subject to the company’s rules of employment and HR regulations, and whether you were in practice included in performance evaluations and disciplinary procedures.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, if you in substance require part-time advisors, consultants, outside directors, etc. to report to work and follow work instructions in the same way as employees, while maintaining only the formal label of an “appointment agreement,” you must recognize that disputes over unfair dismissal, retirement benefits, and the four major social insurances may arise in the future. When utilizing advisory appointment agreements, you should clearly define the scope of work, the performance-based remuneration structure, and the autonomy regarding working hours and workplace, and operate the system so that, in substance, it is clear that these individuals hold a status separate from that governed by the rules of employment and HR regulations.
You should also specify in detail in the appointment agreement the contract term, criteria for calculating remuneration, and grounds and procedures for termination. This will enable the Labor Relations Commission or the courts to clearly ascertain the substantive nature of the relationship in the event of a dispute and reduce confusion with redundancy dismissals or disciplinary dismissals.
If, in cases of this type, you obtain prior assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and review your contract structures and operational practices in advance, you can significantly reduce the likelihood of unfair dismissal disputes. As the Labor Relations Commission’s decisions demonstrate, what matters most is not form but contract design and operation that reflect the substantive reality.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the worker, as a part-time advisor, was not bound by fixed working hours or workplace; that the worker autonomously determined how to carry out the assigned investment-attraction tasks and proceeded with them in consultation with the company’s personnel; that the remuneration received by the worker was more in the nature of compensation for appointing an employee from a particular institution as an advisor than consideration for labor itself, and that the remuneration for the appointed advisory work was determined in proportion to performance under the advisory appointment agreement; and that the one-year contract term stipulated in the employment contract differed from the two-year contract term acknowledged by the parties in this case and that, rather, the advisory appointment agreement matched the contract term and conditions agreed upon by the parties, the Commission determined that the worker held the status of an executive who performed duties autonomously under the advisory appointment agreement.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the worker, as a part-time advisor, was not bound by fixed working hours or workplace; that the worker autonomously determined how to carry out the assigned investment-attraction tasks and proceeded with them in consultation with the company’s personnel; that the remuneration received by the worker was more in the nature of compensation for appointing an employee from a particular institution as an advisor than consideration for labor itself, and that the remuneration for the appointed advisory work was determined in proportion to performance under the advisory appointment agreement; and that the one-year contract term stipulated in the employment contract differed from the two-year contract term acknowledged by the parties in this case and that, rather, the advisory appointment agreement matched the contract term and conditions agreed upon by the parties, the Commission determined that the worker held the status of an executive who performed duties autonomously under the advisory appointment agreement. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Refusal to Renew (General Manager · Conflict over Sexual Harassment Allegations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: - Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (part-time advisor), 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, “‘Refusal to Renew (General Manager · Conflict over Sexual Harassment Allegations)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employee status (part-time advisor) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Part-Time Advisor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
