[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (registered director·shareholder).” Decision authority: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해249 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-28 · Case result: Dismissed Key issue summary: ① The worker was a shareholder and registered director of a business other than the respondent’s, and in light of the nature of the duties performed and the working pattern, it was difficult to find that the worker was subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; ② It was difficult to find that the employer designated, managed, and controlled the worker’s working hours and place of work, or that the worker worked under the employer’s work rules or service (personnel) regulations; ③ It was difficult to view the worker as having provided work to the business on a continuous and exclusive basis; … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the applicant filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission seeking relief on the ground that the dismissal imposed on him/her constituted an unfair dismissal. However, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application, holding that it was difficult to regard the applicant as a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act. The applicant had been serving as a shareholder and registered director of a business other than the respondent’s, while also performing work for the respondent employer’s business and receiving remuneration. The applicant argued that this relationship should be recognized as an employment relationship. The Labor Relations Commission, after comprehensively considering the applicant’s status, the nature of the duties, the working pattern, and the character of the remuneration, determined that it was difficult to recognize a subordinate relationship of work provision vis-à-vis the employer, and therefore did not accept the application for relief from unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the applicant has been active as a shareholder and registered director of a business other than the respondent’s and has received certain remuneration, the relationship with the employer can be regarded as that of a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act, and thus whether the applicant has standing to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The decision panel in this case noted that the applicant had been active as a shareholder and registered director of a business other than the respondent’s; that, in light of the nature and manner of performance of the applicant’s duties, it was difficult to find that the applicant had provided work under substantial direction and supervision by the employer; that it was difficult to recognize that working hours and place of work had been designated, managed, and controlled by the employer; and that it was difficult to view the applicant as having provided work to the business on a continuous and exclusive basis. Taking into account, in addition, that the remuneration received by the applicant appeared to be money paid in connection with his/her status as a registered director rather than “wages” in the ordinary sense, the Commission held that it was difficult to recognize employee status under the Labor Standards Act and, accordingly, to recognize standing to seek relief from unfair dismissal. Ultimately, the Commission found that the dismissal at issue did not constitute an unfair dismissal and dismissed the application for relief. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) From the worker’s perspective, it is important to note that, regardless of formal titles on business cards or nominal positions such as registered director, the key criterion is whether, in substance, one has provided work in a subordinate manner under the employer’s direction and supervision for the purpose of receiving wages. In particular, where shareholder/director status and worker status are intertwined, it is important to secure, on an ongoing basis, materials that can prove matters such as designation of working hours and place of work, applicability of work rules, the manner in which work instructions are given, and the nature of the remuneration (whether it is performance-based distribution or consideration for work). When preparing an application for relief from unfair dismissal to the Labor Relations Commission, it is necessary to organize and submit objective documents and evidence (pay slips, enrollment in the four major social insurances, attendance records, personnel/evaluation materials, etc.) showing that one has in substance been treated as a worker. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when structuring contractual relationships with shareholders, registered directors, freelancers, and the like, it is necessary to clearly design and record roles, authority, responsibilities, remuneration systems, and working patterns so that, in substance, the relationship is not evaluated as a subordinate employment relationship under the criteria for determining employee status. In particular, where a registered director is, in practice, required to work under conditions virtually identical to those of an employee—such as designation of working hours and place of work and full application of the work rules—while being characterized only formally as an “officer,” there is a risk that employee status will be recognized in the event of a dispute. In addition, to prevent unfair dismissal disputes, employers should, from the stage of personnel and labor management, establish and refine criteria for “who is a worker” in consultation with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law&, and, prior to major personnel measures such as redundancy or dismissal, proactively review whether employee status may be recognized and whether an application for relief may be filed. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History ① The worker was a shareholder and registered director of a business other than the respondent’s, and in light of the nature of the duties performed and the working pattern, it was difficult to find that the worker was subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; ② It was difficult to find that the employer designated, managed, and controlled the worker’s working hours and place of work, or that the worker worked under the employer’s work rules or service (personnel) regulations; ③ It was difficult to view the worker as having provided work to the business on a continuous and exclusive basis; ④ The remuneration received by the worker also appeared to be money paid not as wages in return for the provision of work, but rather in connection with the worker’s tenure as a registered director of a business other than the respondent’s, and the business other than the respondent’s … 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision ① The worker was a shareholder and registered director of a business other than the respondent’s, and in light of the nature of the duties performed and the working pattern, it was difficult to find that the worker was subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; ② It was difficult to find that the employer designated, managed, and controlled the worker’s working hours and place of work, or that the worker worked under the employer’s work rules or service (personnel) regulations; ③ It was difficult to view the worker as having provided work to the business on a continuous and exclusive basis; ④ The remuneration received by the worker also appeared to be money paid not as wages in return for the provision of work, but rather in connection with the worker’s tenure as a registered director of a business other than the respondent’s, and the business other than the respondent’s … / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld - “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (registered director·shareholder), 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, “‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Project Fixed-Term)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to denial of employee status (registered director·shareholder) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Registered Director·Shareholder).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article