[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (absence of employer’s direction and supervision).” Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해485 – ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-06-30 · Result: Application dismissed Summary of key issue: It is reasonable to find that the applicant is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, as it cannot be established that the employer exercised substantial direction and supervision over the performance of the work, and thus the work cannot be viewed as having been provided for the purpose of wages in a subordinate relationship to the employer. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this application for relief from unfair dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the applicant qualified as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission denied employee status and dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal on the ground that a subordinate labor-providing relationship between the employer and the applicant could not be established. Because the unfair dismissal relief procedure presupposes that the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act, the Commission did not proceed to examine any further issues, such as whether the dismissal constituted a redundancy dismissal or whether there was just cause and due process for the dismissal, once it concluded that employee status could not be recognized. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a person providing labor can be regarded as an employee under the Labor Standards Act where the employer has not exercised substantial direction and supervision over the content, time, and place of the work. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that: (i) it could not be established that the employer exercised substantial direction and supervision over the performance of the work; (ii) it was difficult to view the work as having been provided for the purpose of wages in a subordinate relationship to the employer; and (iii) in light of the criteria for determining employee status, it was difficult to recognize a substantive relationship of subordination to the employer. Accordingly, the Commission held that the applicant did not fall within the definition of an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the dismissal at issue could not be the subject of an application for relief from unfair dismissal, which presupposes that the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the Commission found no need to further examine the remaining issues. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) To file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, the worker must first be able to prove that he or she is an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Even if the contract is labeled as a “contract for work” or “freelancer,” you should secure as much evidence and testimony as possible regarding whether, in reality, the employer determined the content of the work, designated the working hours and place of work, and provided specific direction and supervision over the performance of the work. In particular, when consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, it is helpful to organize information on factors used to determine employee status—such as the method of wage payment, whether you have other clients, ownership of tools and equipment, and the type of social insurance coverage—so that you can assert your status more clearly in proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, if you in fact exercise continuous and substantial direction and supervision over a particular individual while merely labeling the relationship as that of a “sole proprietor” or “outsourcing contract,” you should be aware that there is a high risk that employee status will be recognized in future disputes over unfair dismissal, retirement allowances, overtime pay, and the like. Conversely, if you intend to maintain a genuine outsourcing, contract-for-work, or freelancer relationship, it is necessary to consistently ensure, both in the contract and in actual practice, that autonomy is guaranteed with respect to the method, time, and place of performing the work, and that the work is carried out at the contractor’s own cost and responsibility. By obtaining advice from HR and labor experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and aligning the contractual form with the actual operation of the relationship, you can reduce the likelihood of receiving an unfavorable decision if a dispute over employee status arises before the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History It is reasonable to find that the applicant is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, as it cannot be established that the employer exercised substantial direction and supervision over the performance of the work, and thus the work cannot be viewed as having been provided for the purpose of wages in a subordinate relationship to the employer. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, which presuppose that the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning It is reasonable to find that the applicant is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, as it cannot be established that the employer exercised substantial direction and supervision over the performance of the work, and thus the work cannot be viewed as having been provided for the purpose of wages in a subordinate relationship to the employer. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues, which presuppose that the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision result: First-instance decision upheld - “‘Mutual Termination (Resignation Intention Due to Discrepancy with Employment Contract Terms)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Number of Regular Employees (Business with Fewer Than Five Employees)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (absence of employer’s direction and supervision), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Mutual Termination (Resignation Intention Due to Discrepancy with Employment Contract Terms)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (absence of employer’s direction and supervision) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Absence of Employer’s Direction and Supervision).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article