This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision that was procedurally dismissed at the stage of determining “employee status (academy investor · shuttle driver · shuttle assistant).” [Case Information] This case is an example in which the issue of “employee status (academy investor · shuttle driver · shuttle assistant)” was resolved by procedural dismissal. Decision Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2413 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-09-07 · Case outcome: Dismissed Key issue summary: ① The vice-director was an investor in the academy who entered into an investment agreement under which he was to receive 40% of the net profit of the business, and it was confirmed that, due to continued deficits after opening, he did not actually receive any profit; ② The two shuttle drivers entered into service contracts for transporting academy students, used their own vehicles, and bore all costs related to vehicle maintenance such as fuel, insurance, and repair costs, as well as all risks related to accidents, making it difficult to regard them as employees; ③ The two shuttle assistants, during the contract period, were allowed to hire third parties to perform the contracted services in their place... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a vice-director of an academy, shuttle bus drivers, and shuttle assistants filed applications for remedy for unfair dismissal on the premise that they were employees under the Labor Standards Act. The Labor Relations Commission, however, examined their status and contractual relationships and dismissed the applications. Focusing on whether “employee status,” which is a prerequisite for an unfair dismissal remedy application, could be recognized, the Commission closely examined the substance of the investment agreement, the transportation service contracts, and the shuttle assistant service contracts. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether the vice-director, who entered into an academy investment agreement, the shuttle drivers, who provided transportation services using their own vehicles, and the shuttle assistants, who were allowed to hire third parties, qualify as “employees” under the Labor Standards Act and thereby have standing to file applications for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The decision panel in this case found that the vice-director had entered into an investment agreement under which he was to receive 40% of the academy’s net profit, and that, in reality, he had not received any profit because the business had been running a deficit since opening. On that basis, the panel viewed him as closer to an “investor” sharing in the business risk than as an employee receiving wages under the employer’s direction and supervision. With respect to the two shuttle drivers, the panel noted that they had entered into contracts to provide transportation services for academy students, operated using their own vehicles, and personally bore all vehicle-related expenses such as fuel, insurance, and repair costs, as well as the risk of accidents. It also took into account precedents concerning academy bus drivers in which employee status was denied where control, management, and risk of vehicle operation lay with the driver. In light of these factors, the panel held that it was difficult to regard them as employees receiving wages under the employer’s direction and supervision. As for the two shuttle assistants, the panel noted that, under their contracts, they could, during the contract period, hire third parties to perform the contracted services in their place, could refuse to participate in or be absent from specific runs, and could determine the method, sequence, and time of service performance at their own discretion. In view of these contractual terms, the panel found it difficult to recognize a typical relationship of subordination to the employer. The dismissal measures in this case were therefore found to involve applicants who did not qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act and thus did not meet the requirements for filing applications for remedy for unfair dismissal. Accordingly, the panel held that it was appropriate to dismiss the applications without a decision on the merits. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that, even if the contract is labeled “investment agreement,” “service contract,” or “freelancer,” the substance—such as who actually directs and supervises the work, who bears the costs and risks of accidents, and whether a third party can be substituted—is more important than the title. In particular, for borderline occupations such as academy bus drivers, assistants, and freelance instructors, it is necessary to retain objective evidence on an ongoing basis regarding how one’s work is actually performed, how remuneration is structured, and who owns and maintains the vehicles or equipment and bears the associated costs. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, before implementing a redundancy dismissal or terminating a contract, it is advisable to review in advance, based on the criteria for determining employee status, whether the individual in question is truly an employee or an independent business operator or investor. Even where academy bus drivers or assistants appear, in form, to be engaged under service contracts, employee status may still be recognized depending on factors such as the degree of specific direction and supervision over driving times, routes, and work methods, the structure of cost and risk allocation, and whether they are allowed to engage in other business. It is therefore important, for dispute prevention, to align the contents of the contract with actual operational practices and to clearly define who bears business risks and costs. To reduce unfair dismissal disputes in this type of case, it is advisable to consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to gain an accurate understanding of the criteria for determining employee status and current practices at the Labor Relations Commission, and to adjust contract structures and operational methods in advance. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History ① The vice-director was an investor in the academy who entered into an investment agreement under which he was to receive 40% of the business’s net profit, and it was confirmed that, due to business deficits after opening, he did not actually receive any profit; ② The two shuttle drivers entered into service contracts for transporting academy students, used their own vehicles, and bore all costs related to vehicle maintenance such as fuel, insurance, and repair costs, as well as all risks related to accidents, making it difficult to regard them as employees; ③ The two shuttle assistants, during the contract period, were allowed to hire third parties to perform the contracted services in their place, could refuse to participate in or be absent from specific runs, and could determine the method, sequence, and time of service performance at their own discretion, so that the service contract... 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings ① The vice-director was an investor in the academy who entered into an investment agreement under which he was to receive 40% of the business’s net profit, and it was confirmed that, due to business deficits after opening, he did not actually receive any profit; ② The two shuttle drivers entered into service contracts for transporting academy students, used their own vehicles, and bore all costs related to vehicle maintenance such as fuel, insurance, and repair costs, as well as all risks related to accidents, making it difficult to regard them as employees; ③ The two shuttle assistants, during the contract period, were allowed to hire third parties to perform the contracted services in their place, could refuse to participate in or be absent from specific runs, and could determine the method, sequence, and time of service performance at their own discretion, so that the service contract... / [More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Decision date: - Case outcome: Dismissed - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: - Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, employee status (academy investor · shuttle driver · shuttle assistant), 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&. ※ The previous article, “‘Disciplinary Action · Transfer (Separation Measures for Workplace Bullying Perpetrator)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to employee status (academy investor · shuttle driver · shuttle assistant) can be viewed together in the “Employee Status (Academy Investor · Shuttle Driver · Shuttle Assistant) Related Decisions” list. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article