[Case Information] This case is a decision that concluded with the cancellation of the first-instance decision, concerning the issues of “employee status · existence of dismissal (pet groomer).” Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae284 ○ ○ ○ Application for Re‑examination of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-17 · Case result: First-instance decision cancelled Summary of key issue: ... is deemed to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the applicant, who had been working as a pet groomer, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming that she qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and that the employer’s unilateral instruction for her to “quit” constituted an unfair dismissal. A decision was first rendered at the regional commission, after which a re‑examination was requested, and the Central Labor Relations Commission re‑examined whether there had been an unfair dismissal and whether the employer bore responsibility. The key issues in this case are whether the pet groomer qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, whether the workplace employed five or more regular employees, whether the employer’s statement to “quit” made during a dispute constituted a dismissal, and, if so, whether that dismissal was justified. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are, first, whether the pet groomer, although nominally engaged as a freelancer or under a contract for services, was in substance an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the employer under direction and supervision in return for wages. Second, whether, if the other pet groomers working under the same arrangement are included, the workplace constitutes a business with five or more regular employees such that the unfair dismissal remedy system under the Labor Standards Act applies. Third, whether the employer’s unilateral statement to the effect of “quit” made during a dispute over an accident that occurred while bathing a pet dog can be regarded as a notice of dismissal by the employer, or merely as an emotional outburst. Finally, if a dismissal is found to exist, whether there is “just cause” in accordance with Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act as required under social norms. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that the applicant was an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages in a subordinate relationship, in light of the fact that the content of her work was determined by the employer, that her working hours and workplace were effectively designated and she was bound by them when providing labor, and that remuneration was paid continuously and repeatedly as consideration for the provision of labor itself, among other factors presented in Supreme Court precedents. The panel further held that there were no substantive differences, relevant to the determination of employee status, between the applicant and the other four pet groomers who worked under the same arrangement. Accordingly, it recognized all of them as employees under the Labor Standards Act and determined that the number of regular employees was five or more. In addition, the panel found that, during the dispute between the employer and the applicant over the accident that occurred while bathing a pet dog, the employer unilaterally stated to the effect that the applicant should “quit,” that the applicant had never clearly expressed an intention to resign, and that, in light of the circumstances of the dispute and the content and context of the statements, the employment relationship could not be regarded as having been terminated at the employee’s own initiative. On this basis, the panel determined that there was an expression of intent to dismiss by the employer. Although this dismissal constituted a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, the panel found that there was no sufficient proof of serious misconduct by the employee or of any reason so grave that, under social norms, the employment relationship could not be maintained. Nor was there any indication that the employer had attempted to avoid dismissal or considered less intrusive measures such as progressive disciplinary steps. Accordingly, the panel ruled that the dismissal lacked just cause and constituted an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even where one is formally labeled a freelancer or engaged under a contract for services—such as pet groomers, private academy instructors, and delivery/platform workers—one may still be recognized as an employee under the Labor Standards Act if, in reality, one works under the employer’s direction and supervision at fixed times and places and receives a set remuneration. In particular, if other workers in the same workplace engaged in similar work are subject to similar working conditions and supervisory structures, the number of regular employees, including those workers, may determine whether an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is available. If, during a dispute, the employer unilaterally notifies you of the termination of the employment relationship with statements such as “Quit,” or “Don’t come in from tomorrow,” this may constitute a dismissal even if you did not submit a resignation letter. Therefore, you should preserve, as far as possible, any records of the conversation at the time, such as recordings or messenger logs. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) In small service businesses such as pet grooming salons, hair salons, and cafés, the mere use of labels such as “freelancer” or “outsourcing” does not suffice to avoid employee status under the Labor Standards Act. In personnel and labor management, it is essential to recognize that the decisive factors are the actual methods of direction and supervision, the designation of working hours and workplace, and the manner of wage payment. In particular, where multiple workers are engaged in the same manner, if all of them are recognized as employees, the business may be deemed a workplace with five or more regular employees, triggering various legal obligations such as restrictions on dismissal, annual paid leave, and severance pay. It is therefore advisable to review and organize in advance your staffing structure and contract types. Moreover, using expressions such as “Quit” in emotionally charged situations carries a high risk of being immediately evaluated as an expression of intent to dismiss. Employers should therefore establish a system under which they first verify the facts, obtain written statements, and issue written warnings, and only then consider whether disciplinary measures are appropriate. Where dismissal is unavoidable, it is necessary to objectively organize the specific details of the misconduct, the extent of damage, the employee’s past work attitude, and the proportionality of the disciplinary measure, so that “just cause” under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act can be recognized. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History ... is deemed to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship. b. Whether the Number of Regular Employees Was Five or More There were no differences among the four other pet groomers at the workplace, apart from the employee, that would affect the determination of employee status. They were therefore deemed employees under the Labor Standards Act, and the number of regular employees was found to be five or more. c. Whether a Dismissal Existed During a dispute between the employer and the employee over an accident that occurred while bathing a pet dog, the employer unilaterally stated to the effect that the employee should quit, and the employee never expressed an intention to resign. Accordingly, it is determined that a dismissal existed. d. Whether the Dismissal Was Justified The employer, while dismissing the employee, under the Labor Standards Act ... 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning ... is deemed to be an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship. b. Whether the Number of Regular Employees Was Five or More There were no differences among the four other pet groomers at the workplace, apart from the employee, that would affect the determination of employee status. They were therefore deemed employees under the Labor Standards Act, and the number of regular employees was found to be five or more. c. Whether a Dismissal Existed During a dispute between the employer and the employee over an accident that occurred while bathing a pet dog, the employer unilaterally stated to the effect that the employee should quit, and the employee never expressed an intention to resign. Accordingly, it is determined that a dismissal existed. d. Whether the Dismissal Was Justified The employer, while dismissing the employee, under the Labor Standards Act ... / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Case – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld - ‘Disciplinary Measure Level (Four Traffic Accidents Involving Special Transportation Vehicles)’ Unfair Dismissal Case - ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Case [Tags] Unfair dismissal, employee status · existence of dismissal (pet groomer), 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 Case Law” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Measure Level (Four Traffic Accidents Involving Special Transportation Vehicles)’ Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to employee status · existence of dismissal (pet groomer) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status · Existence of Dismissal (Pet Groomer).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article