[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of employee status (head of a newspaper agency).” Decision date: 2026-07-02 · Decision-making body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해217 Key issues in summary: (i) The worker did not receive substantial direction and supervision from the employer in the course of performing newspaper sales and advertising order work under a service contract with the employer; (ii) there was no fixed workplace or working hours and the worker was not subject to work rules or other internal employment regulations; (iii) to perform the service contract, the worker directly hired delivery personnel and paid them monthly wages, and directly received newspaper payments from customers without remitting them to the employer, from which it appears that the worker operated the business on his own account; … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the applicant, who had been engaged in newspaper sales and advertising order work, applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal on the premise that he was an employee under the Labor Standards Act. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, denied that he was an employee at all. The Commission focused its analysis on whether the applicant fell within the definition of “employee” under Article 2 of the Labor Standards Act, taking into comprehensive consideration the contractual form between the applicant and the company, the actual manner in which the work was performed, and the structure of remuneration. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether a person who entered into and worked under a service contract for newspaper sales and advertising orders qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act in relation to the contracting party, such that he may file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel held that, in the course of performing newspaper sales and advertising order work, the applicant had not been subject to specific or individualized direction and supervision from the employer; that there was no fixed workplace or working hours and no application of work rules or internal employment regulations; and that, in order to perform the service contract, the applicant directly hired delivery personnel and paid them monthly wages, and, while doing so, directly received newspaper payments from customers without remitting them to the employer, thereby operating the business on his own account. It further noted that the applicant also worked for another business during the period in which he performed the service contract, making it difficult to recognize exclusivity, and that the amounts received from customers appeared to be income generated by his own business activities rather than wages as consideration for labor. On this basis, the Commission concluded that it was difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor for the purpose of receiving wages in a relationship of subordination and control. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) To obtain relief from unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, “employee status” must first be recognized. Even if the contract is titled a service or subcontract agreement, you should carefully review how working hours and place of work, job duties, and the direction and supervision relationship actually operated in practice. If you yourself hire delivery personnel or assistants, directly receive and settle payments from customers, and work concurrently for other businesses, it will be difficult to have your employee status recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) For personnel who, on the surface, operate as freelancers, commissioned agents, or service contractors in areas such as newspaper sales and advertising orders, there is a high risk that they will be found to be employees if, in reality, you designate their working hours and place of work, apply personnel and work rules, and exercise strong direction and supervision. It is therefore important to align the way the contract is operated with the actual practice. Conversely, if you intend to have them operate as independent business operators, as in this case, you should clearly define matters such as the hiring of third parties, the structure for receiving and settling payments, and whether concurrent work for other businesses is permitted, and systematically manage the relevant facts through documentation and supporting evidence. In this type of case, it is advisable to seek assistance from a specialized organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&, to review in advance the factors for determining employee status (relationship of subordination and control, nature of remuneration as wages, exclusivity, allocation of business risk, etc.) and to prepare an evidentiary strategy in the event of a dispute. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was decided that the applicant did not qualify as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (1) In the course of performing newspaper sales and advertising order work under a service contract with the employer, the worker did not receive substantial direction and supervision from the employer; (2) there was no fixed workplace or working hours and the worker was not subject to work rules or other internal employment regulations; (3) to perform the service contract, the worker directly hired delivery personnel and paid them monthly wages, and, in addition, directly received newspaper payments from customers without remitting them to the employer, from which it is determined that he operated the business on his own account; (4) during the period in which he performed the service contract, he also worked for another business, making it difficult to recognize exclusivity; and (5) it is difficult to regard the newspaper payments received from customers as wages in return for labor. In light of all of these circumstances, it is difficult to regard him as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provides labor for the purpose of receiving wages in a relationship of subordination and control. [See More Related Decisions] - “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)” in Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Remedial Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employee)” in Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Participation in Services for Another Institution)” in Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, Non-existence of employee status (head of newspaper agency), 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. ※ The previous article, “Dismissal (Fewer Than 5 Regular Employees)” in Unfair Dismissal Decision, can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of employee status (head of newspaper agency) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Employee Status (Head of Newspaper Agency).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article