Corporate trends / Performance record
Denial of Employee Status (Recruitment-Linked Vocational Trainee) in Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 461)
- Date2026/05/19 09:47
- Read 95
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (recruitment-linked vocational trainee).”
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026 Unfair Dismissal 26 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.24 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Taking the following circumstances together, it is difficult to find that an employment contract was formed between the worker and the employer.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a trainee participating in a recruitment-linked training program was excluded in the middle of the course and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the trainee qualified as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act, and then denied the very formation of an employment contract, dismissing the application. As there are many similar recruitment-linked programs in connection with unfair dismissal and applications for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission, this is a type of case frequently handled in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “a trainee participating in a vocational training/education course premised on future hiring qualifies as a worker under the Labor Standards Act and thus has standing to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.” In other words, the key question is whether mere admission to the training course and payment of training allowances can be regarded as forming an employment contract with the employer.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that it was difficult to recognize the formation of an employment contract, in light of the following: the recruitment notice clearly stated a selection process whereby “only those who complete the training course, undergo evaluation, and pass will be given an opportunity to join the company”; on the first day of the course, the worker personally signed a document confirming that the program was a training program, not an employment contract; and the trainee did not in fact perform any actual work other than participating in the training. The panel also took into account that anyone who was not color-blind or color-weak could apply without any other qualification requirements and that admission to the course was decided solely on the basis of document screening without an interview, so that admission could not be equated with final acceptance. Furthermore, the money paid as “training expenses” was closer in nature to an inducement to recruit and reimbursement of living expenses than to wages as consideration for work. Taken together, the panel concluded that there was no provision of labor under the employer’s direction and supervision for the purpose of receiving wages, i.e., no subordinate employment relationship under the Labor Standards Act.
As the premise of employee status was ultimately denied, the dismissal measure in this case was not found to be unfair, on the ground that there was no need to further examine whether the dismissal existed or was justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, even where a program is described as recruitment-linked training or internship, the key criteria for recognition of employee status are whether you actually performed the company’s work, whether you were under the company’s direction and supervision, and whether the money you received constituted wages (consideration for work). If documents such as the confirmation you sign at the start of the program and the recruitment notice clearly indicate your status as a “trainee,” you may need to consider legal avenues other than an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, such as a civil claim for damages. To assert unfair dismissal in similar circumstances, it is important to secure as much evidence as possible that you in substance provided labor under the guise of training (work schedules, work instructions, performance management records, wage statements, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating recruitment-linked vocational training or internship programs, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the training phase from the employment contract phase in documents such as recruitment notices, guidance materials, and confirmations. If trainees are assigned to actual production or sales work, are paid in a typical wage format, and are subject to strict specifications of working hours and workplace, there is a high risk that employee status will be recognized regardless of form. Accordingly, when designing the content and operation of training programs, employers should carefully review the criteria for determining a relationship of subordination under the Labor Standards Act. Where vocational training expenses or living allowances are paid, their nature as reimbursement of actual expenses should be made clear, and care should be taken not to create confusion by unnecessarily adopting the formalities associated with “employees,” such as withholding wage income tax or enrolling trainees in the four major social insurances.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking the following circumstances together, it is difficult to find that an employment contract was formed between the worker and the employer. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining arguments concerning the existence of a dismissal and its justification.
a. In the recruitment notice, the selection process was specified as one in which only those who complete the training course and pass the evaluation are given an opportunity to join the company, and on the first day of the course the worker personally signed a confirmation stating that the course was a training program, not an employment contract. In light of these facts, it appears that the worker participated in the training with the understanding that mere participation in the program would not itself form an employment contract.
b. The training in question was open to anyone who was not color-blind or color-weak without any additional qualification requirements, and admission to the course was determined solely on the basis of document screening without a separate interview process. In these circumstances, it is difficult to regard admission to the course as equivalent to final acceptance for employment.
c. As the trainee did not provide any labor other than participating in the training, it is reasonable to view the money paid as “training expenses” as having the nature of reimbursement of actual expenses, taking into account recruitment inducement and living expenses, rather than wages as consideration for labor.
d. In light of the above circumstances, the fact that the training in question had the character of vocational training for recruitment purposes alone is insufficient to recognize that a trainee thereby acquired the status of a worker under the Labor Standards Act in relation to the employer.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking the following circumstances together, it is difficult to find that an employment contract was formed between the worker and the employer. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining arguments concerning the existence of a dismissal and its justification.
a. In the recruitment notice, the selection process was specified as one in which only those who complete the training course and pass the evaluation are given an opportunity to join the company, and on the first day of the course the worker personally signed a confirmation stating that the course was a training program, not an employment contract. In light of these facts, it appears that the worker participated in the training with the understanding that mere participation in the program would not itself form an employment contract.
b. The training in question was open to anyone who was not color-blind or color-weak without any additional qualification requirements, and admission to the course was determined solely on the basis of document screening without a separate interview process. In these circumstances, it is difficult to regard admission to the course as equivalent to final acceptance for employment.
c. As the trainee did not provide any labor other than participating in the training, it is reasonable to view the money paid as “training expenses” as having the nature of reimbursement of actual expenses, taking into account recruitment inducement and living expenses, rather than wages as consideration for labor.
d. In light of the above circumstances, the fact that the training in question had the character of vocational training for recruitment purposes alone is insufficient to recognize that a trainee thereby acquired the status of a worker under the Labor Standards Act in relation to the employer. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Conditional Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (recruitment-linked vocational trainee), 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, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (recruitment-linked vocational trainee) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Recruitment-Linked Vocational Trainee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (recruitment-linked vocational trainee).”
Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026 Unfair Dismissal 26 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.24 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: Taking the following circumstances together, it is difficult to find that an employment contract was formed between the worker and the employer.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a trainee participating in a recruitment-linked training program was excluded in the middle of the course and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the trainee qualified as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act, and then denied the very formation of an employment contract, dismissing the application. As there are many similar recruitment-linked programs in connection with unfair dismissal and applications for remedy before the Labor Relations Commission, this is a type of case frequently handled in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “a trainee participating in a vocational training/education course premised on future hiring qualifies as a worker under the Labor Standards Act and thus has standing to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.” In other words, the key question is whether mere admission to the training course and payment of training allowances can be regarded as forming an employment contract with the employer.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that it was difficult to recognize the formation of an employment contract, in light of the following: the recruitment notice clearly stated a selection process whereby “only those who complete the training course, undergo evaluation, and pass will be given an opportunity to join the company”; on the first day of the course, the worker personally signed a document confirming that the program was a training program, not an employment contract; and the trainee did not in fact perform any actual work other than participating in the training. The panel also took into account that anyone who was not color-blind or color-weak could apply without any other qualification requirements and that admission to the course was decided solely on the basis of document screening without an interview, so that admission could not be equated with final acceptance. Furthermore, the money paid as “training expenses” was closer in nature to an inducement to recruit and reimbursement of living expenses than to wages as consideration for work. Taken together, the panel concluded that there was no provision of labor under the employer’s direction and supervision for the purpose of receiving wages, i.e., no subordinate employment relationship under the Labor Standards Act.
As the premise of employee status was ultimately denied, the dismissal measure in this case was not found to be unfair, on the ground that there was no need to further examine whether the dismissal existed or was justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, even where a program is described as recruitment-linked training or internship, the key criteria for recognition of employee status are whether you actually performed the company’s work, whether you were under the company’s direction and supervision, and whether the money you received constituted wages (consideration for work). If documents such as the confirmation you sign at the start of the program and the recruitment notice clearly indicate your status as a “trainee,” you may need to consider legal avenues other than an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, such as a civil claim for damages. To assert unfair dismissal in similar circumstances, it is important to secure as much evidence as possible that you in substance provided labor under the guise of training (work schedules, work instructions, performance management records, wage statements, etc.).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating recruitment-linked vocational training or internship programs, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the training phase from the employment contract phase in documents such as recruitment notices, guidance materials, and confirmations. If trainees are assigned to actual production or sales work, are paid in a typical wage format, and are subject to strict specifications of working hours and workplace, there is a high risk that employee status will be recognized regardless of form. Accordingly, when designing the content and operation of training programs, employers should carefully review the criteria for determining a relationship of subordination under the Labor Standards Act. Where vocational training expenses or living allowances are paid, their nature as reimbursement of actual expenses should be made clear, and care should be taken not to create confusion by unnecessarily adopting the formalities associated with “employees,” such as withholding wage income tax or enrolling trainees in the four major social insurances.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking the following circumstances together, it is difficult to find that an employment contract was formed between the worker and the employer. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining arguments concerning the existence of a dismissal and its justification.
a. In the recruitment notice, the selection process was specified as one in which only those who complete the training course and pass the evaluation are given an opportunity to join the company, and on the first day of the course the worker personally signed a confirmation stating that the course was a training program, not an employment contract. In light of these facts, it appears that the worker participated in the training with the understanding that mere participation in the program would not itself form an employment contract.
b. The training in question was open to anyone who was not color-blind or color-weak without any additional qualification requirements, and admission to the course was determined solely on the basis of document screening without a separate interview process. In these circumstances, it is difficult to regard admission to the course as equivalent to final acceptance for employment.
c. As the trainee did not provide any labor other than participating in the training, it is reasonable to view the money paid as “training expenses” as having the nature of reimbursement of actual expenses, taking into account recruitment inducement and living expenses, rather than wages as consideration for labor.
d. In light of the above circumstances, the fact that the training in question had the character of vocational training for recruitment purposes alone is insufficient to recognize that a trainee thereby acquired the status of a worker under the Labor Standards Act in relation to the employer.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking the following circumstances together, it is difficult to find that an employment contract was formed between the worker and the employer. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining arguments concerning the existence of a dismissal and its justification.
a. In the recruitment notice, the selection process was specified as one in which only those who complete the training course and pass the evaluation are given an opportunity to join the company, and on the first day of the course the worker personally signed a confirmation stating that the course was a training program, not an employment contract. In light of these facts, it appears that the worker participated in the training with the understanding that mere participation in the program would not itself form an employment contract.
b. The training in question was open to anyone who was not color-blind or color-weak without any additional qualification requirements, and admission to the course was determined solely on the basis of document screening without a separate interview process. In these circumstances, it is difficult to regard admission to the course as equivalent to final acceptance for employment.
c. As the trainee did not provide any labor other than participating in the training, it is reasonable to view the money paid as “training expenses” as having the nature of reimbursement of actual expenses, taking into account recruitment inducement and living expenses, rather than wages as consideration for labor.
d. In light of the above circumstances, the fact that the training in question had the character of vocational training for recruitment purposes alone is insufficient to recognize that a trainee thereby acquired the status of a worker under the Labor Standards Act in relation to the employer. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Conditional Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (recruitment-linked vocational trainee), 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, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (recruitment-linked vocational trainee) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Recruitment-Linked Vocational Trainee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
