[Case Information] This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “standing as a party (residents’ representative council of a redevelopment apartment complex).” Decision date: 2026-07-02 · Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해878 Key issue summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case concerns a dispute over apartment management work handled by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the Commission focused its analysis on Employer 1’s standing as a party and on whether the business of the residents’ representative council had been discontinued. It is a case that those preparing to file an unfair dismissal relief application may find useful, both in understanding the Labor Relations Commission procedure and in considering the practical perspective of Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅰ. Case Overview In this apartment complex, all residents moved out on 28 January 2026 due to reconstruction, and accordingly, the apartment management work previously carried out by the residents’ representative council had also come to an end. The workers claimed that their dismissals constituted unfair dismissal and filed for relief with the Labor Relations Commission; however, by that time, the business of the residents’ representative council had already been effectively discontinued. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where all residents have moved out and the management business of the residents’ representative council has been effectively discontinued, the workers have standing as parties and a legally protectable interest in seeking relief (구제이익) to contest unfair dismissal against Employer 1 and Employer 2. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel found that Employer 1 was the party that had directly entered into employment contracts with the workers and had given notice of dismissal; that Employer 2 was not a direct party to the employment relationship and that there were no special circumstances justifying an obligation to succeed to the employment; and that, as all residents had moved out, the apartment management work of the residents’ representative council had ended and the council retained legal capacity only within the scope of its liquidation purpose. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the business of the residents’ representative council must be regarded as having been effectively discontinued as of 29 January 2026, and that the workers, from that point, were no longer in the status of employees. Accordingly, when the unfair dismissal relief application was filed on 19 February 2026, there no longer existed an employment relationship that could be restored by an order of reinstatement, and thus there was no legally protectable interest in seeking relief. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to identify precisely who actually dismissed you—that is, who is the direct party to the employment contract and who qualifies as the employer—and to designate that party correctly in an application to the Labor Relations Commission. In addition, where there is a possibility that the business will effectively come to an end due to reconstruction, business closure, redundancy dismissals, or similar circumstances, you should bear in mind that if you do not file for unfair dismissal relief without delay immediately after the dismissal, the subsequent closure of the business may lead to a finding that there is no legally protectable interest in seeking relief. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, it is important to organize and maintain clarity regarding employment contracts, the entity paying wages, and the lines of command and supervision, so as to prevent confusion between the actual employer and any nominal employer. In cases where the business is effectively discontinued, such as in apartment reconstruction, it is advisable to leave objective records showing that the termination of employment arose from business closure rather than simple redundancy dismissals, as well as documenting the timing of closure and the scope of liquidation. This will help prepare for any future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission over the existence of a legally protectable interest in seeking relief. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which the Commission held that Employer 1 had standing as a party, but that, because the business had been effectively discontinued, there was no legally protectable interest in seeking relief to contest unfair dismissal. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Which of the employers has standing as a party Standing as a party lies with Employer 1, who directly entered into employment contracts with the workers and gave notice of dismissal. Employer 2, who was not a direct party to the employment relationship, does not have standing as a party, as there are no special circumstances justifying recognition of an obligation to succeed to the workers’ employment. (b) Whether a legally protectable interest in seeking relief exists All residents moved out as of 28 January 2026 due to the apartment reconstruction; as a result, the apartment management work of the residents’ representative council, which presupposes the existence of residents, also came to an end. Even if the residents’ representative council continues to exist for liquidation purposes, an entity in liquidation has legal capacity only within the scope of its liquidation purpose. In light of these factors, the business of the residents’ representative council is recognized as having been effectively discontinued as of 29 January 2026. Since the application for relief was filed on 19 February 2026, when the applicants were already no longer in the status of employees, there is no legally protectable interest in seeking relief. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Management/Supervision)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Legally Protectable Interest in Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaners)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, standing as a party (residents’ representative council of a redevelopment apartment complex), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Existence of Employee Status (Newspaper Agency Head)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to standing as a party (residents’ representative council of a redevelopment apartment complex) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Standing as a Party (Residents’ Representative Council of a Redevelopment Apartment Complex).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article