[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (daycare director).” Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해1923 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-05 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: (1) The duties described in the employment contract consisted of overall management of childcare-related work for infants and young children and comprehensive operation of the daycare center, including recruitment, appointment, and management of childcare staff; (2) it was not established that the employer determined the content of the director’s work or gave instructions regarding such work; (3) the director, in her own name, prepared and amended the rules of employment, applied them, and entered into written agreements with the employees’ representative, thereby handling matters from the position of an employer; (4) the director’s role at the daycare... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the director of a daycare center, who was in charge of overseeing childcare-related work for infants and young children, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking relief on the ground that her dismissal constituted unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing on whether she qualified as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act and whether she should instead be regarded as occupying the status of an employer. As a result, the central issue for determination became whether the applicant’s status was that of an employer rather than a worker. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether a daycare director who has comprehensively overseen the operation of the daycare center and has been responsible for overall personnel and labor management, including the recruitment, appointment, and management of childcare staff, qualifies as a “worker” under the Labor Relations Commission Act and the Labor Standards Act and is therefore entitled to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal. In other words, the question was whether, despite the formal execution of an employment contract, the director’s substantive status as an employer would negate her “employee status,” which is a prerequisite for protection under the unfair dismissal relief procedures. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings Relying on Supreme Court precedents concerning the existence of a relationship of subordination in employment, the decision panel noted: (1) the duties specified in the employment contract were defined as overall management of childcare-related work for infants and young children and comprehensive operation of the daycare center, including recruitment, appointment, and management of childcare staff; (2) there was no evidence that the founder/operator of the daycare center determined the specific content of the applicant’s work or gave her day-to-day instructions or supervision; (3) the applicant, in her own name, prepared and amended the rules of employment, entered into written agreements with the employees’ representative, and implemented them, thereby establishing personnel and labor rules in the capacity of an employer; and (4) she exercised personnel authority over childcare teachers, including management of their leave and attendance and the exercise of disciplinary powers, and, as the final approving authority, she also managed her own attendance and use of leave. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the applicant should be regarded as having independently operated the daycare center in the capacity of an employer under the Labor Standards Act, and could not be viewed as a worker who provided labor subordinately to the daycare center in return for wages. Accordingly, because the “employee status” that forms the premise of an application for relief from unfair dismissal was not recognized, the Commission determined that the dismissal at issue could not be deemed an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) For positions such as daycare director, center director, or branch manager, which represent the organization and oversee overall personnel and labor management, it must be borne in mind that, even if an employment contract has been executed in name, the individual may in substance be evaluated as an employer, leading to dismissal or rejection of an application for relief from unfair dismissal. To assert one’s status as a worker, it is important to systematically organize concrete facts relating to subordination, such as whether the content of the work was determined by a superior, whether the rules of employment were applied to the individual, and whether the individual was actually subject to direction and supervision regarding working hours and place of work. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) When appointing directors, center directors, or store managers at daycare centers, welfare facilities, franchise outlets, and similar establishments, the contractual terms and actual operation should be aligned with whether the position is to be regarded as that of a “worker” or as that of an “employer (management representative).” If you intend to grant final decision-making authority over overall personnel and labor matters, authority to enact and amend rules of employment, and authority to approve other employees’ disciplinary measures and leave, while at the same time having the position function as the counterparty (employer) in unfair dismissal relief procedures, it is helpful for dispute prevention to clearly define the structure of authority and responsibility in the employment contract, delegation agreement, and internal regulations. This type of decision illustrates how crucial the preliminary requirement—namely, whether a person is a proper party entitled to file an application with the Labor Relations Commission—is in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases. Where similar disputes are anticipated, it is advisable at an early stage to obtain advice from a specialist labor consulting organization such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and to carefully examine the factors relevant to determining employee status and employer status. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History (1) The duties described in the employment contract consisted of overall management of childcare-related work for infants and young children and comprehensive operation of the daycare center, including recruitment, appointment, and management of childcare staff; (2) it was not established that the employer determined the content of the director’s work or gave instructions regarding such work; (3) the director, in her own name, prepared and amended the rules of employment, applied them, and entered into written agreements with the employees’ representative, thereby handling matters from the position of an employer; (4) the director performed personnel and labor management tasks such as managing leave and attendance and exercising disciplinary powers with respect to the daycare’s childcare teachers, and, as the final approving authority, also managed her own attendance and use of leave... 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (1) The duties described in the employment contract consisted of overall management of childcare-related work for infants and young children and comprehensive operation of the daycare center, including recruitment, appointment, and management of childcare staff; (2) it was not established that the employer determined the content of the director’s work or gave instructions regarding such work; (3) the director, in her own name, prepared and amended the rules of employment, applied them, and entered into written agreements with the employees’ representative, thereby handling matters from the position of an employer; (4) the director performed personnel and labor management tasks such as managing leave and attendance and exercising disciplinary powers with respect to the daycare’s childcare teachers, and, as the final approving authority, also managed her own attendance and use of leave... / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case” – Date of decision: - Case result: Initial decision upheld - “‘Employer Standing (Corporation Operating a Local Self-Sufficiency Center)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case” - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (daycare director), 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. ※ The previous article, “‘Employer Standing (Corporation Operating a Local Self-Sufficiency Center)’ in Unfair Dismissal Case,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to denial of employee status (daycare director) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Daycare Director).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article