[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (CFO Managing Director).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해1992 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-31 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: ① After being promoted to director in 2022, the applicant no longer served as a mere worker but assumed the critical role of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) overseeing the company’s overall finances, and in 2024 was promoted to Managing Director, thereby holding a top executive position and regularly participating, together with the CEO and other C-level executives, in meetings to discuss and decide the company’s major management matters; ② Although no separate executive appointment agreement was drawn up between the parties, in light of the fact that even a director of a lower rank than the applicant had executed an executive appointment agreement, it appeared that the applicant too had been treated as a typical executive; … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an applicant who, after being promoted to Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and serving as Managing Director, was removed from office and treated as having retired, and then filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the applicant qualified as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act, taking into account his status, role, and level of remuneration, and then reviewed the admissibility of the application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether a person serving as Managing Director in the capacity of CFO qualifies as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act and, accordingly, whether he may file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The panel in this case focused on whether the executive/managerial status asserted by the employer was merely nominal, or whether the applicant was in fact an independent executive who oversaw the company’s overall finances and participated in management decision-making. On that basis, it strictly examined whether the applicant had employee status. The dismissal at issue in this case was not found to be unfair, on the ground that the applicant did not fall within the definition of “worker” under the Labor Standards Act and therefore the measure could not be regarded as a “dismissal” that is subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The Labor Relations Commission considered, first, that after being promoted to director in 2022, the applicant assumed the critical role of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) overseeing the company’s overall finances, and in 2024 was promoted to Managing Director, thereby holding a top executive position and regularly participating, together with the CEO and other C-level executives, in meetings to discuss and decide the company’s major management matters; second, that in light of the fact that even a director of a lower rank than the applicant had executed an executive appointment agreement, it appears that the applicant too was treated as a typical executive; and third, that compared to his salary before being promoted to director, his annual salary was substantially increased by approximately KRW 33,000,000 to KRW 58,000,000, and his remuneration was set in the form of an annual salary contract. Accordingly, the Commission found that the applicant’s status was not that of a worker providing certain labor under the direction and supervision of the CEO and others, but rather that of an executive independently handling affairs delegated by the company. As a result, the applicant could not be regarded as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act and therefore lacked standing as an applicant to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Relations Commission Act. On this basis, the Commission dismissed the application for remedy. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) Even if titles such as non-registered executive, director, or managing director are used, there is room for recognition of employee status where, in reality, the person is subject to attendance control, the company’s personnel regulations apply, and he or she performs only assigned tasks under the CEO’s specific direction and supervision. Conversely, as in this case, where the person oversees the company’s finances, participates in management decision-making, and is compensated under an executive-level remuneration scheme that has been significantly increased, it will be difficult to be recognized as a worker by the Labor Relations Commission. Therefore, those considering seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal should objectively organize and record the extent to which they were actually subject to the employer’s direction and supervision, whether they were involved in personnel and management decision-making, and whether their remuneration and contractual arrangements were closer to those of a worker. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the company’s standpoint, where directors, managing directors, and other executives are granted substantive management decision-making authority and discretion, it is necessary to clearly establish corresponding executive appointment agreements, remuneration schemes, and structures for participation in decision-making bodies. If the company merely confers executive titles in form while actually managing and supervising such persons like ordinary workers and then has them leave in the form of executive removal, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may recognize their employee status, leading to unfair dismissal disputes. In particular, employers should design and maintain consistency in matters such as whether an executive appointment agreement is executed, whether the position is registered, the structure of the annual salary contract, and whether personnel regulations and work rules apply, so as to prevent the legal statuses of executives and workers from becoming commingled. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young-seop, Labor Law Firm Law&.) 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History ① After being promoted to director in 2022, the applicant no longer served as a mere worker but assumed the critical role of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) overseeing the company’s overall finances, and in 2024 was promoted to Managing Director, thereby holding a top executive position and regularly participating, together with the CEO and other C-level executives, in meetings to discuss and decide the company’s major management matters; ② Although no separate executive appointment agreement was drawn up between the parties, in light of the fact that even a director of a lower rank than the applicant had executed an executive appointment agreement; ③ Compared to his annual salary before being promoted to director, his salary was increased by KRW 33,000,000 to KRW 58,000,000, and his annual salary con… 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning ① After being promoted to director in 2022, the applicant no longer served as a mere worker but assumed the critical role of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) overseeing the company’s overall finances, and in 2024 was promoted to Managing Director, thereby holding a top executive position and regularly participating, together with the CEO and other C-level executives, in meetings to discuss and decide the company’s major management matters; ② Although no separate executive appointment agreement was drawn up between the parties, in light of the fact that even a director of a lower rank than the applicant had executed an executive appointment agreement; ③ Compared to his annual salary before being promoted to director, his salary was increased by KRW 33,000,000 to KRW 58,000,000, and his annual salary con… / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Supervision and Management)’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (CFO Managing 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Supervision and Management),” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (CFO Managing Director) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (CFO Managing Director).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article