[Case Information] This case is an unfair dismissal decision on the issue of “employer status (supervisory service provider · project owner)” in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed). Decision Committee: Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해224 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-27 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: The entity that hired the worker, entered into the employment contract, filed the acquisition and loss of employment insurance, and paid wages was the supervisory service provider. It is difficult to regard the project owner as an employer of the worker under the Labor Standards Act or as having standing as the respondent in this remedy application. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this application for remedy for unfair dismissal, the central issues before the Labor Relations Commission were: who actually hired the applicant and entered into the employment contract, and against whom the application for remedy should properly be filed in the unfair dismissal procedure. The parties disputed whether the entity that filed the acquisition and loss of employment insurance for the worker and paid the wages was the supervisory service provider or the project owner (the alleged employer). Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a worker belonging to a supervisory service provider files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal against the project owner, the project owner has the status of an employer under the Labor Standards Act and standing as a respondent in the Labor Relations Commission proceedings. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The decision panel found that the entity that hired the worker was the supervisory service provider; that the employment contract and the filings for acquisition and loss of employment insurance were made in the name of the supervisory service provider; and that wages were also paid directly by the supervisory service provider. In light of these facts, the panel held that it was difficult to regard the project owner as the actual employer who directs and supervises the worker and pays wages, and that it was also difficult to recognize the project owner’s standing as respondent in this application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The dismissal at issue in this case can therefore be summarized as having been dismissed, insofar as the application was filed against the project owner, on the grounds that employer status and standing as respondent were not established. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) When a worker files for a remedy for unfair dismissal, it is essential first to confirm who actually hired them and paid their wages, and in whose name the four major social insurances and employment insurance were reported. In indirect employment structures such as supervisory services, facility management, security and cleaning, the project owner and the service provider are often separate entities. Accordingly, in order to have employer status recognized for the project owner, you should thoroughly整理 the specific facts regarding the relationship of direction and supervision, the exercise of personnel authority, and so on, and then consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the project owner’s standpoint, it is important for dispute prevention not to be directly involved in hiring, dismissal, performance evaluation, or wage payment for employees of the supervisory service provider, and to clearly separate, both in the contract and in actual operations, which entity bears responsibility for personnel and labor management. Conversely, the supervisory service provider should itself perform the basic functions of an employer—hiring, entering into employment contracts, filing employment insurance, paying wages, and handling discipline and dismissal—and systematically retain related documentation so that it can clearly prove its employer status and standing as respondent before the Labor Relations Commission. This decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, the preliminary question of “who is the real employer and against whom the application for remedy to the Labor Relations Commission should be filed” must first be resolved, and it suggests that the same legal principles may apply in similar structures involving collective redundancies, contracting, and dispatch. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History The entity that hired the worker, entered into the employment contract, filed the acquisition and loss of employment insurance, and paid wages was the supervisory service provider, and it is difficult to regard the project owner as an employer of the worker under the Labor Standards Act or as having standing as the respondent in this remedy application. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The entity that hired the worker, entered into the employment contract, filed the acquisition and loss of employment insurance, and paid wages was the supervisory service provider, and it is difficult to regard the project owner as an employer of the worker under the Labor Standards Act or as having standing as the respondent in this remedy application. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Initial decision upheld - “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, employer status (supervisory service provider · project owner), 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, “‘Probationary Contract (Score Below 70 on Probationary Evaluation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to employer status (supervisory service provider · project owner) at “List of Decisions on Employer Status (Supervisory Service Provider · Project Owner).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article