[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (funeral vehicle driver).” Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae446 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-26 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: … the low level of exclusivity, ② the fact that the worker did not obtain the employer’s approval for matters such as attendance and leave, ③ the fact that the worker’s remuneration was in the nature of service fees paid according to the number of funeral vehicle driving assignments, with no basic or fixed wage, ④ the fact that the funeral vehicle driving work could be substituted through a third party (a substitute driver), ⑤ the fact that, when there was no funeral procession, the worker could drive funeral vehicles for other funeral homes, ⑥ the fact that no written employment contract was prepared and the worker was not enrolled in the four major social insurances… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the issue was whether a funeral vehicle driver should be recognized as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act in relation to a funeral home. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered the decision. The applicant claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief, but the Commission first examined whether the applicant qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. It ultimately denied the applicant’s employee status and dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a funeral vehicle driver, who has repeatedly performed driving work for a certain fee, qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and can therefore file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case considered that: ① the applicant’s work was not exclusively tied to a specific employer and the level of exclusivity was low; ② the applicant adjusted matters such as attendance and use of leave independently without obtaining the employer’s approval; ③ remuneration was paid as service fees based on the number of driving assignments, not as a basic or fixed wage; ④ the applicant was free to have the funeral vehicle driving work substituted by a third party as a substitute driver; ⑤ on days without a funeral procession, the applicant could drive funeral vehicles for other funeral homes; and ⑥ no written employment contract was prepared, the applicant was not enrolled in the four major social insurances, and income tax withholding and similar tax procedures were not carried out. In light of the above, the Commission held that, although the applicant did provide work to the employer, it was difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provides labor for the purpose of receiving wages within a typical relationship of subordination to the employer. The Commission therefore found that, because employee status under the Labor Standards Act was denied, the dismissal at issue did not give rise to “standing as a proper party” for an application for relief from unfair dismissal, and the application was dismissed without reaching the merits. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, the absence of enrollment in the four major social insurances or of a written employment contract does not automatically negate employee status. However, where exclusivity is very low, working hours and leave are set autonomously, and the work structure allows for easy substitution by third parties, the Labor Relations Commission may apply a stricter standard in determining employee status. In particular, for drivers, delivery and transport workers, and platform workers who receive per-case fees in the form of “service charges,” it is important to organize in advance evidence relating to the relationship of subordination to the employer, such as the extent of actual direction and supervision by the employer and whether the worker was simultaneously working for other businesses. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, for personnel in borderline positions such as funeral vehicle drivers, it is necessary to design the structure clearly so that the substance of the relationship is not a mixture of contract-for-work/outsourcing and employment. While maintaining low exclusivity, not specifying working hours and places in detail, and consistently operating a structure that allows substitution by third parties and pays per-assignment service fees, employers must also avoid unnecessarily introducing elements that would support a finding of employee status under the Labor Standards Act (such as detailed direction and supervision or de facto daily attendance control). By obtaining advice from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, employers should conduct prior reviews of contract types, actual operational practices, and documentation so that future personnel measures such as layoffs or contract terminations do not escalate into unfair dismissal disputes. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History … and the low level of exclusivity, ② the fact that the worker did not obtain the employer’s approval for matters such as attendance and leave, ③ the fact that the worker’s remuneration was in the nature of service fees paid according to the number of funeral vehicle driving assignments, with no basic or fixed wage, ④ the fact that the funeral vehicle driving work could be substituted through a third party (a substitute driver), ⑤ the fact that, when there was no funeral procession, the worker could drive funeral vehicles for other funeral homes, ⑥ the fact that no written employment contract was prepared, the worker was not enrolled in the four major social insurances, and no income tax or other taxes were paid—taken together, the worker cannot be regarded as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and therefore lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … and the low level of exclusivity, ② the fact that the worker did not obtain the employer’s approval for matters such as attendance and leave, ③ the fact that the worker’s remuneration was in the nature of service fees paid according to the number of funeral vehicle driving assignments, with no basic or fixed wage, ④ the fact that the funeral vehicle driving work could be substituted through a third party (a substitute driver), ⑤ the fact that, when there was no funeral procession, the worker could drive funeral vehicles for other funeral homes, ⑥ the fact that no written employment contract was prepared, the worker was not enrolled in the four major social insurances, and no income tax or other taxes were paid—taken together, the worker cannot be regarded as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and therefore lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Reemployment Expectation Right (Manager’s Audit Remarks)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed - “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (funeral vehicle driver), 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, “Reemployment Expectation Right (Manager’s Audit Remarks) – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to denial of employee status (funeral vehicle driver) at “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Funeral Vehicle Driver).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article