[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “denial of employee status (privately owned delivery vehicles).” Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae712 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-09-11 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: … It was found that the fact that delivery schedules and routes were to some extent predetermined stemmed from the nature of the parcel delivery business itself, and therefore it was difficult to see that the workers were bound by working hours and place or that they were subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; (v) there was no fact that the employer’s rules of employment, etc. were applied to them, and they themselves maintained and managed their personally owned vehicles. In light of all these circumstances, it was held difficult to find that the workers provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages, and therefore… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, drivers engaged in parcel delivery work applied to the employer for a remedy for unfair dismissal, but the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission denied that they were “employees” under the Labor Standards Act. The applicants sought relief from the Labor Relations Commission on the basis of the substantive nature of the services they provided, but the Commission, after examining the existence of subordination in accordance with Supreme Court precedents, dismissed the applications. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case was whether “parcel delivery drivers who deliver within designated areas using their own vehicles qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act solely because their delivery schedules and routes are, to some extent, predetermined.” In other words, the core issue was whether drivers who, in form, work under a consignment or subcontracting arrangement can nevertheless be recognized as being subordinate to the employer and thus be proper parties to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that, in the course of performing their work, it was difficult to see that the workers were subject to specific and individual direction and supervision; that the employer’s control over their working hours and place of work was not strong; that the employer’s rules of employment and service regulations were not applied to them at all; and that they themselves maintained and managed their personally owned vehicles. Accordingly, it was determined that it was difficult to regard the workers as having provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. Therefore, taking into account the criteria for determining employee status set out in Supreme Court Decisions 94Da22***, 2004Da29***, etc., the Commission held that the applicants in this case did not fall within the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. On that basis, it found no need to further examine whether a dismissal had occurred or whether it was justified, and dismissed the applications for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) Even when parcel or delivery work is performed using a privately owned vehicle, substantial subordination to the employer must be recognized—through designation of working hours and place, specific work instructions, application of rules of employment, etc.—in order to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal from the Labor Relations Commission. The mere fact that a delivery area or general schedule is predetermined may not be sufficient to establish employee status. Accordingly, when entering into a contract, you should carefully retain materials showing whether the contract is an employment contract or a consignment/subcontracting agreement, and how direction and supervision are actually exercised. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) If a company concludes consignment or subcontracting agreements with parcel/delivery drivers but, in actual operation, directs and supervises them as if they were employees, there is a very high risk that employee status will later be recognized and that disputes over unfair dismissal will arise. Conversely, as in this case, in order for employee status to be denied, it is necessary to design, in line with Supreme Court standards, the method of issuing work instructions, the degree of autonomy in working hours and place, whether rules of employment are applied, and who owns and manages vehicles and equipment, and to systematically manage evidence that shows how these matters are actually operated. In disputes of this type, it is advisable to consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to gain an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing the determination of employee status in relation to unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal, and to review contract structures and operational practices in advance. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History … It was found that the fact that delivery schedules and routes were to some extent predetermined stemmed from the nature of the parcel delivery business itself, and therefore it was difficult to see that the workers were bound by working hours and place or that they were subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; (v) there was no fact that the employer’s rules of employment, etc. were applied to them, and they themselves maintained and managed their personally owned vehicles. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to find that the workers provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages, and they cannot be regarded as employees under the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, there is no need to further examine whether a dismissal occurred or whether it was justified on that premise. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … It was found that the fact that delivery schedules and routes were to some extent predetermined stemmed from the nature of the parcel delivery business itself, and therefore it was difficult to see that the workers were bound by working hours and place or that they were subject to substantial direction and supervision by the employer; (v) there was no fact that the employer’s rules of employment, etc. were applied to them, and they themselves maintained and managed their personally owned vehicles. In light of all these circumstances, it is difficult to find that the workers provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages, and they cannot be regarded as employees under the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, there is no need to further examine whether a dismissal occurred or whether it was justified on that premise. / [More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld - “‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (privately owned delivery vehicles), 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. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Limitation on Application of the Law (Fewer Than Five Regular Employees)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions relating to denial of employee status (privately owned delivery vehicles) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Relating to Denial of Employee Status (Privately Owned Delivery Vehicles).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article