[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of employee status (newspaper agency head).” Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해217 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-02 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: (i) In performing newspaper sales, securing advertisements, etc. under a service contract with the employer, the worker was not in fact subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; (ii) there was no fixed workplace or working hours, and the worker was not subject to work rules or other rules of employment; (iii) in order to perform the service contract, the worker directly hired delivery workers and paid them monthly wages, and directly received newspaper payments from customers and did not remit them to the employer, from which it can be seen that … 1. Legal Implications In this unfair dismissal case, the key issue before the Labor Relations Commission was whether the applicant qualified as an employee, and the employer ultimately prevailed. Labor Law Firm Law& will summarize the Commission’s reasoning and the practical implications from our perspective. Even if an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is filed, if the applicant is not deemed an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act, the Labor Relations Commission may dismiss the application without proceeding to a determination on the merits. This point is of particular significance. Ⅰ. Case Overview The applicant was a person who, as a newspaper agency head, entered into a service contract with a newspaper company or local agency and carried out newspaper sales and advertisement solicitation in a designated area. When the contract later ended or the business relationship otherwise ceased, the applicant treated this as a de facto dismissal and filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Commission first examined whether the applicant was an employee who provided labor to the employer in a subordinate position for the purpose of receiving wages, or an independent business operator who conducted business on his or her own account and responsibility. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a service contract relationship for newspaper sales and advertisement solicitation, a newspaper agency head qualifies as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act and, accordingly, whether he or she may file an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that no circumstances were revealed indicating that, in the course of performing newspaper sales and advertisement solicitation, the applicant was subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer as to working methods or detailed handling of tasks; that there was no fixed workplace or working hours and the applicant was not subject to work rules or rules of employment; that, in order to perform the service contract, the applicant directly hired delivery workers and paid them monthly wages, and directly received newspaper payments from customers and did not remit them to the employer; and further, that during the relevant period the applicant also worked for another business establishment, making it difficult to view the applicant as being exclusively attached to a particular employer. In light of these circumstances, the Commission determined that the applicant was closer to a business operator running an independent business on his or her own account and responsibility, and that an employment-subordination relationship under the Labor Standards Act could not readily be recognized in relation to the employer. Accordingly, the dismissal at issue was not considered a subject of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, which presupposes the existence of an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the application was dismissed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even where a formal service or subcontracting contract has been concluded—such as in the case of newspaper agency heads, small shop managers, or commissioned sales outlet owners—there is room for recognition of employee status if, in reality, the worker is subject to the employer’s specific direction and supervision, is bound to fixed working hours and a fixed workplace, and does not bear business risks on his or her own account. Conversely, as in this case, where the structure is closer to that of an independent business operator—directly hiring third parties, directly receiving and settling payments, and concurrently working for other business establishments—recognition of employee status will be difficult. Accordingly, those in similar positions should, from the stage of contract conclusion and performance of work, objectively organize and record the actual state of direction and supervision, the structure of revenues and costs, and the existence or non-existence of exclusivity. When considering an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, it is advisable first to consult closely with a labor law specialist on whether one qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the company’s standpoint, when designing transaction structures with newspaper agency heads, commissioned shop owners, special-type workers, and similar parties, it must be borne in mind that merely labeling a contract as a “service contract” or “subcontracting contract” is not sufficient to negate employee status. It is important to organize the actual mode of operation in light of the factors for determining employee status presented by the Supreme Court, such as how work content is determined, whether working hours and workplace are designated, whether rules of employment or work rules apply, whether hiring of third parties is permitted, and how profits and losses are allocated. In particular, in order for a worker to be viewed as an independent business operator, the company should examine whether, in substance, the labor provider bears personnel and other costs, bears profits and losses through the receipt and settlement of transaction payments, and is not subject to the company’s direct day-to-day direction and supervision regarding working hours and performance of work. Only then is it more likely that, in future disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals, the Labor Relations Commission’s determination will be favorable to the company. 2. Matters Determined A. Case Overview and Procedural History (i) In performing newspaper sales, securing advertisements, etc. under a service contract with the employer, the worker was not in fact subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; (ii) there was no fixed workplace or working hours, and the worker was not subject to work rules or other rules of employment; (iii) in order to perform the service contract, the worker directly hired delivery workers and paid them monthly wages, and directly received newspaper payments from customers and did not remit them to the employer, from which it is determined that the worker conducted business on his or her own account; (iv) during the period of performing the contents of the service contract, the worker also worked as belonging to another business establishment, making it difficult to recognize exclusivity … 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (i) In performing newspaper sales, securing advertisements, etc. under a service contract with the employer, the worker was not in fact subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; (ii) there was no fixed workplace or working hours, and the worker was not subject to work rules or other rules of employment; (iii) in order to perform the service contract, the worker directly hired delivery workers and paid them monthly wages, and directly received newspaper payments from customers and did not remit them to the employer, from which it is determined that the worker conducted business on his or her own account; (iv) during the period of performing the contents of the service contract, the worker also worked as belonging to another business establishment, making it difficult to recognize exclusivity … / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case result: Initial decision upheld - ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed - ‘Dismissal (Fewer Than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, Non-existence of employee status (newspaper agency head), 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, “‘Dismissal (Fewer Than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of employee status (newspaper agency head) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Employee Status (Newspaper Agency Head).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article