[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (full-time director / registered executive).” Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해492 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-03 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: The employer, a local public corporation of considerable size, recruited a full-time director through an open recruitment process conducted in the name of the chair of the Executive Recommendation Committee, seeking candidates with professional expertise and capabilities. The worker applied and was appointed as a full-time director. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This application for remedy for unfair dismissal concerns a registered executive who had been appointed as a full-time director of a local public corporation and was later dismissed, and who then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission alleging unfair dismissal. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the applicant’s status and the substantive nature of his duties, and focused on whether he qualified as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act in order to determine the admissibility of the application for remedy. As a result, the Commission dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a person who served as a full-time director and registered executive of a local public corporation qualifies as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act in relation to the employer and, accordingly, is entitled to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employer is a local public corporation of considerable size and that it selected a candidate with professional expertise and capabilities as a full-time director through an open recruitment process conducted in the name of the chair of the Executive Recommendation Committee. The worker, as a registered executive, attended board meetings and participated in management decision-making, including deliberation and resolution on capital and budgets. Under the performance-based management contract, he served as the head of the relevant division, overseeing various management activities and bearing responsibility for their outcomes. Under the employer’s internal regulations, he held independent decision-making authority (final approval rights) over numerous matters, exercised substantial discretion, and independently carried out his duties. In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that the worker was closer in status to a business management officer entrusted with the management of a specific field, endowed with responsibility and authority and independently handling affairs, rather than a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act who provides certain labor under the employer’s concrete and individual direction and supervision. In view of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence denying employee status for executives of large companies who are appointed to manage specialized fields and who perform their duties independently with broad authority and responsibility, the panel held that the applicant in this case does not qualify as a worker entitled to seek a remedy for unfair dismissal. Accordingly, it ruled that the dismissal at issue cannot be the subject of a remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) Those serving in executive positions such as full-time director, executive director, or managing director should be aware that employee status may be recognized or completely denied depending not on the job title on the business card, but on the actual content of the work and the structure of authority. Where an executive participates in the board of directors and holds broad authority and responsibility over overall management, including budget, personnel, and final approval rights, and where the structure is such that the executive makes independent management decisions rather than being subject to the company’s specific direction and supervision, it may be fundamentally difficult to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal through the Labor Relations Commission. If you are considering responding to a dismissal as unfair, you should first carefully examine, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, the likelihood that your status will be recognized as that of a worker. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer / Company Perspective) From the company’s standpoint, it is important to clearly distinguish between the status of executives and employees, and to specify in detail the structure for appointment and dismissal of executives and the scope of their authority and responsibilities in the articles of incorporation, internal regulations, and performance-based management contracts. In particular, for local public corporations and public institutions, if documents clearly show that executives have been granted managerial status—through the composition of the Executive Recommendation Committee, open recruitment procedures, participation in the board of directors, and the granting of final approval rights—future disputes over unfair dismissal are less likely to involve controversy over employee status. Conversely, if, in substance, an individual is closer to an employee while being treated as an executive only in form, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may recognize employee status and impose liability for unfair dismissal. Careful attention is therefore required in designing personnel and organizational structures. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History The employer is a local public corporation of considerable size and recruited a full-time director through an open recruitment process conducted in the name of the chair of the Executive Recommendation Committee, seeking candidates with professional expertise and capabilities. The worker applied and was appointed as a full-time director. As a registered executive, the worker attended board meetings and participated in management decision-making processes such as deliberation and resolution on capital and budgets. Under the performance-based management contract, he served as the head of the relevant division, overseeing various management activities and bearing responsibility for their outcomes. Under the employer’s internal regulations, he held independent decision-making authority (final approval rights) over numerous matters, exercised substantial discretion, and appears to have independently carried out his duties. And… 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employer is a local public corporation of considerable size and recruited a full-time director through an open recruitment process conducted in the name of the chair of the Executive Recommendation Committee, seeking candidates with professional expertise and capabilities. The worker applied and was appointed as a full-time director. As a registered executive, the worker attended board meetings and participated in management decision-making processes such as deliberation and resolution on capital and budgets. Under the performance-based management contract, he served as the head of the relevant division, overseeing various management activities and bearing responsibility for their outcomes. Under the employer’s internal regulations, he held independent decision-making authority (final approval rights) over numerous matters, exercised substantial discretion, and appears to have independently carried out his duties. And… / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld - “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (full-time director / registered executive), 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, “‘Lack of Business Necessity (Transfer of Underperformer · Non-Payment of Project Incentive)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (full-time director / registered executive) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Full-Time Director / Registered Executive).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article