[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision on the issue of “standing as employer (corporation operating a local self-sufficiency center).” Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026부해316 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-06 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld Summary of key issue: … it is argued that standing as employer is established, but under the National Basic Living Security Act and the Guidelines on the Operation of Local Self-Sufficiency Centers, a local self-sufficiency center is nothing more than a facility under the umbrella of the operating corporation and cannot be viewed as a separate, independent entity or organization; the head of the self-sufficiency center is merely a person appointed by the operating corporation; no circumstances are found that would allow the former center and the current center to be regarded as a single legal and organizational entity; and there is no comprehensive succession of employment such as transfer or acquisition of business. In light of these points … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker employed at a local self-sufficiency center applied to the Labor Relations Commission for remedies, alleging unfair dismissal and unfair wage reduction. At the reconsideration stage before the Central Labor Relations Commission, the core issue was whether the local self-sufficiency center itself or the operating corporation should be regarded as the “employer” under the Labor Standards Act and thus as the proper respondent in the unfair dismissal remedy proceedings. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “In a local self-sufficiency center established and operated pursuant to the National Basic Living Security Act and the Guidelines on the Operation of Local Self-Sufficiency Centers, can the center itself be regarded as a separate employer, or must only the operating corporation be regarded as the employer?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case held that it is difficult to recognize standing as employer in the local self-sufficiency center itself, given that under the National Basic Living Security Act and the operation guidelines, a local self-sufficiency center is merely a facility under the umbrella of the operating corporation; the head of the center is no more than a person appointed by the operating corporation; and there are no circumstances confirming legal or organizational identity between the former center and the current center, nor is there a comprehensive succession of employment such as transfer or acquisition of business. Accordingly, the panel determined that, on the premise that the local self-sufficiency center is the employer, the legitimacy of the unfair wage reduction and unfair dismissal was not a proper subject for further review, and therefore did not proceed to substantive examination. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) When a worker applies to the Labor Relations Commission for remedies such as unfair dismissal, redundancy dismissal, or unfair wage reduction, it is essential first to accurately identify who the “substantive employer” is—that is, the party that actually entered into the employment contract, paid wages, and exercised personnel authority. In particular, where work is performed in entrusted operations, commissioned institutions, local self-sufficiency centers, childcare centers, social welfare facilities, and similar settings, the respondent should not be designated solely by reference to the name of the center or facility. Instead, the application should be directed to the true employer entity, such as the operating corporation or entrustee corporation. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) For corporations that operate projects entrusted by local governments, public or welfare facilities, local self-sufficiency centers, and similar institutions, it is helpful for dispute prevention to make it clear in rules and documents that the corporation is the主体 (principal) of personnel and labor management, and to consistently indicate the operating corporation as the employer in employment contracts, letters of appointment, disciplinary documents, and so forth. In addition, where there is a change of centers, a change of entrusted corporations, or structural changes similar to transfer or acquisition of business, the corporation should examine in advance whether employment succession will occur and how the status as employer will change, and make necessary adjustments so that standing as employer does not become an issue before the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History … it is argued that standing as employer is established, but under the National Basic Living Security Act and the Guidelines on the Operation of Local Self-Sufficiency Centers, a local self-sufficiency center is nothing more than a facility under the umbrella of the operating corporation and cannot be viewed as a separate, independent entity or organization; the head of the self-sufficiency center is merely a person appointed by the operating corporation; no circumstances are found that would allow the former center and the current center to be regarded as a single legal and organizational entity; and there is no comprehensive succession of employment such as transfer or acquisition of business. In light of these points, standing as employer cannot be recognized for the employer (local self-sufficiency center). Therefore, on this premise, there is no need to further examine the legitimacy of the unfair wage reduction and unfair dismissal. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … it is argued that standing as employer is established, but under the National Basic Living Security Act and the Guidelines on the Operation of Local Self-Sufficiency Centers, a local self-sufficiency center is nothing more than a facility under the umbrella of the operating corporation and cannot be viewed as a separate, independent entity or organization; the head of the self-sufficiency center is merely a person appointed by the operating corporation; no circumstances are found that would allow the former center and the current center to be regarded as a single legal and organizational entity; and there is no comprehensive succession of employment such as transfer or acquisition of business. In light of these points, standing as employer cannot be recognized for the employer (local self-sufficiency center). Therefore, on this premise, there is no need to further examine the legitimacy of the unfair wage reduction and unfair dismissal. / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Result: First-instance decision upheld - ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, standing as employer (corporation operating a local self-sufficiency center), 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, “‘Grounds for Dismissal of Application (Failure to Comply with Correction Order)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to standing as employer (corporation operating a local self-sufficiency center) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Standing as Employer (Corporation Operating a Local Self-Sufficiency Center).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article