[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision on the issue of “existence of an employment relationship (event assistant daily worker).” Decision date: 2026-07-06 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae125 Key issues summarized: (i) the worker applied for a part-time job posting specifying a daily wage of KRW 110,000, not a regular position on an annual salary basis; (ii) the worker’s assertions regarding a “6 months–1 year” working period, a three-day probation, and weekly wage payments appear to be nothing more than wording in the job posting to secure daily workers capable of long-term work and a matter of payment convenience; (iii) the employer handled the worker’s employment insurance insured status report using the “Report on Confirmation of Work Details” applicable to daily workers, and, in light of the worker’s actual work arrangements, etc., … 1. Legal Implications In this unfair dismissal relief application, the worker argued that he was in substance a regular employee or at least a part-timer hired on the premise of long-term employment. The Labor Relations Commission, however, viewed the relationship as a one-day daily employment contract and held that no dismissal existed at all. By examining this Central Labor Relations Commission decision, we will look at how the nature of the employment relationship is assessed in similar disputes and what points should be emphasized in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅰ. Case Overview The worker applied for a part-time position under a job posting specifying a daily wage of KRW 110,000 and commenced work. He then filed an unfair dismissal relief application, arguing that, based on phrases in the posting such as “able to work 6 months–1 year,” “3-day probation,” and “weekly payment,” he was in effect a worker with no fixed term or at least close to such status. The employer countered that the worker was assigned work individually only after confirming his availability whenever needed for events, etc., and that employment insurance had been handled using the “Report on Confirmation of Work Details” form for daily workers. The employer argued that the employment relationship simply ended automatically upon expiry of each one-day contract period and that there had been no dismissal. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether a worker hired through a part-time job posting was in fact a one-day daily worker, or a fixed-term / de facto open-ended employee on the premise of long-term employment, and, depending on that characterization, whether the employer’s failure to assign work constitutes an unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel took into comprehensive account the following: the job posting presented by the employer was for a part-time position with a “daily wage of KRW 110,000,” not a regular position on an annual salary basis; the expressions “6 months–1 year of work,” “3-day probation,” and “weekly payment” in the posting appeared to be wording aimed at securing daily workers capable of long-term work and for payment convenience; the employer handled employment insurance using the “Report on Confirmation of Work Details” method applicable to daily workers; and, in practice, work assignments were made by individual agreement whenever needed for events, etc., rather than on a continuous basis. On this basis, the Commission found it reasonable to view the employment relationship between the parties as a one-day daily employment contract, under which the relationship automatically terminated at the end of each working day. Accordingly, it held that there was no dismissal based on any separate expression of intent by the employer. The dismissal measure in this case was therefore found to be unjust, as the unfair dismissal relief application was premised on a dismissal that did not exist. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, one should be cautious not to conclude solely from job posting phrases such as “able to work for 6 months or more,” “probationary period,” or “weekly payment” that one is a worker with no fixed term or a long-term contract worker. It is advisable first to examine one’s legal status by comprehensively considering factors such as whether work is assigned on a continuous basis, whether contracts/schedules are broken down on a one-day basis, and the manner in which employment insurance and the four major social insurances are reported, and then to assess whether an unfair dismissal has occurred. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when utilizing part-time or daily workers, it is important to ensure that all elements—job postings, employment contracts, scheduling methods, and the type of employment insurance reporting—consistently and clearly reflect that the arrangement is a “one-day contract.” In particular, if expressions such as “long-term work possible” or “probationary period” are used, but the actual operation is not managed in a way that avoids being perceived as a continuous and ongoing employment relationship, there is a heightened risk in disputes that the worker will claim to be a worker with no fixed term or a fixed-term worker with a legitimate expectation of contract renewal. Employers should therefore exercise caution. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was determined that no dismissal existed because the worker fell under the category of a daily worker whose employment relationship terminated upon the expiry of each one-day contract period. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (1) The worker applied for a part-time position under a job posting specifying a daily wage of KRW 110,000, not a regular position on an annual salary basis; (2) the worker’s assertions regarding a “6 months–1 year” working period, the mention of a three-day probation, and weekly wage payments appear to be nothing more than wording in the job posting to secure daily workers capable of long-term work and a matter of payment convenience; (3) the employer handled the worker’s employment insurance insured status report using the “Report on Confirmation of Work Details” applicable to daily workers, and the worker’s work was not assigned on a continuous basis but was operated in such a way that his availability was checked whenever needed for events, etc., and assignments were made individually by agreement. In light of all these circumstances, it is reasonable to view the employment relationship between the parties as a one-day daily employment contract, and the employment relationship automatically terminated at the end of each working day; therefore, it was determined that no dismissal existed. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone Call)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of employment relationship (event assistant daily worker), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to Business Necessity (Transfer of Head Nurse of Ward 55),” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to existence of employment relationship (event assistant daily worker) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Relating to Existence of Employment Relationship (Event Assistant Daily Worker).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article