[Case Information] This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “denial of employee status (academy vehicle drivers and accompanying teachers).” Decision Committee: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해529 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-03 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: The vehicle drivers, accompanying teachers on the vehicle, and teachers in charge of accompanying students to the academy are not workers under the Labor Standards Act who provide labor for the purpose of receiving wages, and therefore must be excluded from the calculation of the number of regularly employed workers. Once they are excluded, the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace is fewer than five, so the workplace does not fall within the scope of application of Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act concerning applications for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case is an application for remedy for unfair dismissal arising at a workplace that appears to be an academy or educational facility, decided by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the Commission dismissed the application. The applicant claimed to have been unfairly dismissed and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief. However, the number of regularly employed workers and the applicant’s status as an employee became issues, and it was first necessary to determine whether the case fell within the scope of Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act. The Commission examined whether the vehicle drivers, accompanying teachers on the vehicle, and teachers in charge of accompanying students to the academy who worked at the workplace could be regarded as workers under the Labor Standards Act, and, if they were included, whether the workplace would be deemed to have five or more regularly employed workers. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is “whether the vehicle drivers, accompanying teachers on the vehicle, and teachers in charge of accompanying students to the academy can be regarded as workers under the Labor Standards Act, and further, whether, including them, the workplace should be deemed to have five or more regularly employed workers so as to fall within the scope of applications for remedy for unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that it was difficult to regard the services provided by the vehicle drivers, accompanying teachers on the vehicle, and teachers in charge of accompanying students to the academy as labor provided for the purpose of receiving wages; that there was insufficient material to find that they fell within the definition of “workers who provide labor to an employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages” under Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act; and that, under the relevant legal principles, the mere provision of money at the level of a simple honorarium or reimbursement of actual expenses makes it difficult to recognize wage character. Accordingly, the Commission determined that it was difficult to recognize these individuals as workers under the Labor Standards Act. As a result, they had to be excluded from the calculation of the number of regularly employed workers, and once they were excluded, the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace was fewer than five. Therefore, the workplace did not fall within the scope of workplaces to which the system of applications for remedy for unfair dismissal under Articles 11 and 28 of the Labor Standards Act applies. Even if there might be room to view the dismissal in this case as unfair, the application for remedy was dismissed on the ground that the case, from the outset, fell outside the scope of application of the statutory system of remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For a worker to apply for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is essential first to check (i) whether he or she is a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act, and (ii) whether the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace is at least five. In particular, where one has worked in academy vehicle driving, accompanying students, or childcare under the guise of “volunteer work” or “payment of an honorarium,” one must sufficiently secure materials showing whether, in substance, one worked regularly and continuously under the employer’s direction and supervision, and whether the consideration received constitutes wages as remuneration for labor. The Labor Relations Commission places more weight on substance than on the form of the contract. Therefore, if you prepare in advance evidence demonstrating a subordinate employment relationship—such as records of attendance, work instructions, payroll records, and whether you were enrolled in the four major social insurances—it will be of great assistance in proving employee status in the event of a dispute. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, if you maintain a practice of effectively using individuals as workers while, in form, using titles such as “volunteer,” “freelancer,” or “teacher” with the five-employee threshold in mind, you must bear in mind that, once their status as workers is recognized, your obligations under the Labor Standards Act may arise all at once. The consistent position of the Supreme Court and the Labor Relations Commissions is that employee status under the Labor Standards Act is determined not by title or form, but by whether labor was provided in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. Accordingly, if you employ personnel who are essential to business operations, such as academy vehicle drivers, accompanying staff, and teachers in charge of accompanying students, it is advisable from the outset to clearly design the form of engagement and, where they are in fact used as workers, to establish basic personnel and labor-management systems such as executing written employment contracts, organizing the wage structure, and enrolling them in the four major social insurances. Only when such systems are in place can you secure legitimacy in future disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals. This decision by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates how important the preliminary requirements of “employee status” and “whether there are five or more regularly employed workers” are before entering into unfair dismissal remedy procedures. Those experiencing similar issues are advised to consult from the early stages of the case with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& to sufficiently organize the facts and review the legal issues. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History The vehicle drivers, accompanying teachers on the vehicle, and teachers in charge of accompanying students to the academy at the workplace cannot be regarded as workers under the Labor Standards Act who provide labor for the purpose of receiving wages, and therefore must be excluded from the calculation of the number of regularly employed workers. Once they are excluded, the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace is fewer than five, so the workplace does not fall within the scope of application of Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act concerning applications for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The vehicle drivers, accompanying teachers on the vehicle, and teachers in charge of accompanying students to the academy at the workplace cannot be regarded as workers under the Labor Standards Act who provide labor for the purpose of receiving wages, and therefore must be excluded from the calculation of the number of regularly employed workers. Once they are excluded, the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace is fewer than five, so the workplace does not fall within the scope of application of Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act concerning applications for remedy for unfair dismissal, etc. / [More Related Decisions] - “Case on Denial of Employee Status (Standing Director / Registered Executive) in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings” - “Case on Non-fulfillment of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company) in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings” - “Case on Non-formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter) in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (academy vehicle drivers and accompanying teachers), 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&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Case on Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Water Meter Reading Workers) in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to denial of employee status (academy vehicle drivers and accompanying teachers) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Academy Vehicle Drivers and Accompanying Teachers).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article