[Case Information] This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “standing to sue (reconstruction apartment residents’ representative council).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae878 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application 2026-07-02 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: (a) – 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This unfair dismissal case arose from an application for relief filed with the Labor Relations Commission by management staff employed at an apartment complex scheduled for reconstruction, who contested their dismissal. The employees raised two main questions: which entity should be regarded as their actual employer, and whether they could continue the Labor Relations Commission relief proceedings even after reconstruction and relocation had been completed. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined these issues and dismissed the application. The core issue in this case is: “In a situation where all residents have relocated due to reconstruction and the apartment management work has come to an end, who can be regarded as the employer against whom an order for unfair dismissal relief may be issued, and whether, in such circumstances, any interest in obtaining relief (guje-iyik) continues to exist.” Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case are, first, in a situation where multiple entities exist around apartment management work—such as the residents’ representative council and a housing management company—who is the “employer” that may properly be named as the respondent in an unfair dismissal relief application, i.e., which entity has standing to be a party. Second, following the progress of reconstruction, all residents relocated as of 28 January 2026, and the management work of the residents’ representative council effectively came to an end. The question is whether, even after that point, there remains any substantive interest in relief—such as an order for reinstatement to the former position or payment of wages in lieu—sufficient to justify issuing an unfair dismissal relief order. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel found that: (i) the entity that directly entered into employment contracts with the employees and notified them of their dismissal was Employer 1; (ii) in light of the case law on apartment management involving housing management companies and residents’ representative councils, there were no special circumstances justifying recognition of an obligation to succeed to employment on the part of Employer 2, who was not a party to the employment contracts; and (iii) since all residents had relocated and the management work of the residents’ representative council had ended, the council existed only for liquidation purposes and could exercise authority solely within the scope of that liquidation purpose. On this basis, the Commission recognized standing to sue only for Employer 1 and denied standing for Employer 2. Furthermore, due to the complete relocation arising from reconstruction, no management work remained, and the residents’ representative council had lost its function as a management entity. Even if the dismissal were deemed unfair, the Commission considered that it would be practically impossible to order reinstatement to the original position or continued payment of wages, and thus the effectiveness of any relief order would be significantly undermined. As a result, the Labor Relations Commission determined that it was difficult to recognize any interest in relief on the part of the employees and dismissed the unfair dismissal relief application. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, when alleging unfair dismissal, it is essential to accurately identify the substantive employer—i.e., the entity that actually entered into the employment contract, paid wages, and exercised direction and supervision. Where the business structure changes due to apartment reconstruction, changes in management arrangements, or replacement of a contracted management company, employees should be aware that employment succession does not occur automatically, and that if a business or organization effectively loses its function, the very existence of an “interest in relief” in Labor Relations Commission proceedings may be called into question. Accordingly, where unfair dismissal is suspected, it is advisable to promptly file an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission before plans for reconstruction, redundancy dismissals, or changes to outsourcing contracts become fully implemented, and to organize, with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, who the actual employer and contracting party to the employment contract is, and whether there has been a transfer of business or de facto employment succession. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s side, where multiple entities are involved—such as an apartment management company, a residents’ representative council, and parties to a management outsourcing contract—it is important to clearly document, in writing, which entity is the contracting party to the employment relationship and how authority over personnel and labor management is structured. If structural changes such as termination of management work due to reconstruction or redevelopment, or closure of the workplace, are anticipated, employers should review in advance the timing and method of terminating employment contracts, whether the requirements for redundancy dismissals are satisfied, and the possibility of employment succession, so as to minimize disputes over standing to sue and interest in relief in the event of a conflict. In addition, where a residents’ representative council has entered the liquidation stage, employers should bear in mind that the council may exercise authority only within the scope of the liquidation purpose. It is therefore advisable to systematically organize preservation of records in anticipation of unfair dismissal disputes, personnel measures before and after liquidation, and the management of relevant contracts and resolution documents. Employers should consult on an ongoing basis with professional organizations such as Labor Law Firm Law& to proactively assess risks relating to employer status, standing to sue, and employment succession. 2. Matters Decided (a) Case Overview and Procedural History (a) Which of the employers has standing to be a party Standing to be a party lies with Employer 1, who directly entered into employment contracts with the employees and notified them of their dismissal. Employer 2, who is not a direct party to the employment relationship, has no standing, as there are no special circumstances that would justify recognizing an obligation on Employer 2 to succeed to the employees’ employment. (b) Whether an interest in relief exists As of 28 January 2026, all residents had relocated due to the apartment reconstruction. Consequently, 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 may exercise authority only within the scope of the liquidation purpose, and therefore … 3. Summary of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning (a) Which of the employers has standing to be a party Standing to be a party lies with Employer 1, who directly entered into employment contracts with the employees and notified them of their dismissal. Employer 2, who is not a direct party to the employment relationship, has no standing, as there are no special circumstances that would justify recognizing an obligation on Employer 2 to succeed to the employees’ employment. (b) Whether an interest in relief exists As of 28 January 2026, all residents had relocated due to the apartment reconstruction. Consequently, 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 may exercise authority only within the scope of the liquidation purpose, and therefore … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, Standing to sue (reconstruction apartment residents’ representative council), Miscellaneous, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Existence of Employee Status (Newspaper Agency Manager)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to standing to sue (reconstruction apartment residents’ representative council) can be viewed together in the “Standing to Sue (Reconstruction Apartment Residents’ Representative Council) Related Decisions” list. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article