Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Employee Status (Academy Instructor)” (Unfair Dismissal 502)
- Date2026/06/06 04:30
- Read 45
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the worker prevailed in full on the issue of “employee status (academy instructor).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9609 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.18 · Case outcome: Fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
(a) Whether the instructor falls under the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act:
① The employment contract expressly stated that the worker was to perform duties under the employer’s substantial direction and supervision;
② The worker received a fixed salary, and the remuneration was paid as consideration for the provision of labor itself;
③ Working hours and place of work were determined by the employer;
④ Classes were conducted using textbooks designated by the employer and in accordance with a prescribed lesson plan;
⑤ While denying employee status, the employer failed to submit any supporting evidence…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application for remedy filed with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission in relation to the unfair dismissal of an academy instructor, in which the Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision fully upholding the worker’s claims. The worker applied for a monetary compensation order instead of reinstatement to the original position, and the Commission ordered the employer to pay KRW 4,034,050 as wages corresponding to the dismissal period.
This is a typical unfair dismissal case in which the following issues arose together: the employee status of the academy instructor, whether the number of regularly employed workers was at least five, the existence and legitimacy of the dismissal, and whether a monetary compensation order should be granted.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: “Whether the academy instructor qualifies as an ‘employee’ under the Labor Standards Act, whether the academy’s number of regularly employed workers is at least five, whether the employer’s unilateral notice of termination of the employment relationship constitutes a dismissal and, if so, whether it is justified, and how the monetary compensation order should be recognized.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that: ① the employment contract specified that the worker was to perform duties under the employer’s substantial direction and supervision; ② the worker received a fixed salary and that remuneration was paid as consideration for the provision of labor itself; ③ working hours and place of work were determined by the employer and the worker was bound thereby; ④ classes were conducted using textbooks designated by the employer and in accordance with a prescribed lesson plan; and ⑤ although the employer denied the worker’s employee status, it failed to present any evidence supporting that position.
In light of the above, the panel held that, regardless of the formal label, the worker in substance provided labor under a subordinate relationship to the employer for the purpose of earning wages, and thus fell within the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act.
The panel further found that approximately 100 instructors were working under the same conditions as the worker, and that, when these instructors are included in the count of regularly employed workers, the workplace must be regarded as having at least five regularly employed workers.
In addition, since the employer unilaterally notified the worker of the termination of the employment relationship, this constituted a “dismissal” as contemplated by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Because the employer failed to notify the worker in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal was procedurally unlawful and void, irrespective of whether it was substantively justified.
Moreover, considering that the worker applied for monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, and that the amount of wages corresponding to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision could be calculated, the Commission granted the application for a monetary compensation order and ordered payment of KRW 4,034,050 as wages corresponding to the dismissal period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Academy instructors and instructors engaged under “freelance” arrangements should bear in mind that, even if the contract is labeled “freelance” or “outsourcing,” they may still be recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act if, in reality, they work under the employer’s direction and supervision, at fixed times and places, and receive a fixed salary. In particular, if there are multiple instructors working under the same conditions, it is highly likely that the threshold of five or more regularly employed workers will be met, thereby increasing the likelihood of enjoying broad protections under the Labor Standards Act, such as applications for remedy for unfair dismissal, annual paid leave, and notice of dismissal.
Furthermore, if the employer merely notifies the worker orally or by text message to “stop coming to work” without providing a written notice stating the reasons and timing of dismissal, there is a high possibility of obtaining a decision of invalid dismissal or a monetary compensation order through an application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, it is important to record and preserve, as concretely as possible, the contents and circumstances surrounding the dismissal notice at the time it is given.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the perspective of academies and education service providers, even if instructors are referred to as “freelancers,” if in practice there is a high degree of subordination—such as direction and supervision, payment of a fixed salary, and specification of working hours and place of work—employee status may be recognized. In particular, where there are many instructors working under the same conditions, it is highly likely that the workplace will be deemed to have at least five regularly employed workers. Employers should therefore design their HR and labor-management structures on that premise and review and refine their work rules, contracts, and operating practices so that the provisions of the Labor Standards Act on dismissal, annual leave, wages, and so forth are complied with.
In addition, when terminating an employment contract, employers should not merely issue a simple “notice of contract termination,” but must provide a written notice clearly stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Failure to do so may render the dismissal itself void due to procedural defects, and may give rise to additional risks such as a finding of unfair dismissal, a monetary compensation order, and enforcement fines.
In this type of case, what is important for both workers and employers is to accurately understand the legal principles governing the determination of employee status based on substance over form, and the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal, and to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the early stages to prevent and manage disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the worker qualifies as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act
In light of: ① the fact that the employment contract specified that the worker was to perform duties under the employer’s substantial direction and supervision; ② the fact that the worker received a fixed salary and that the remuneration was paid as consideration for the provision of labor itself; ③ the fact that working hours and place of work were determined by the employer; ④ the fact that classes were conducted using textbooks designated by the employer and in accordance with a prescribed lesson plan; and ⑤ the fact that, although denying the worker’s employee status, the employer submitted no evidence to support that position, the worker is deemed to fall within the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act.
b. Whether the workplace had at least five regularly employed workers
Approximately 100 instructors were working under the same working conditions as the worker. When these instructors are included in the count of regularly employed workers, the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace is at least five.
c. Whether a dismissal existed and whether it was justified
Since the employer unilaterally notified the worker of the termination of the employment relationship, this constitutes a dismissal. Because the employer did not provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal is procedurally unlawful.
d. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
The worker’s application for a monetary compensation order is granted, and the amount of monetary compensation is set at KRW 4,034,050, corresponding to wages for the dismissal period.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Whether the worker qualifies as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act
In light of: ① the fact that the employment contract specified that the worker was to perform duties under the employer’s substantial direction and supervision; ② the fact that the worker received a fixed salary and that the remuneration was paid as consideration for the provision of labor itself; ③ the fact that working hours and place of work were determined by the employer; ④ the fact that classes were conducted using textbooks designated by the employer and in accordance with a prescribed lesson plan; and ⑤ the fact that, although denying the worker’s employee status, the employer submitted no evidence to support that position, the worker is deemed to fall within the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act.
b. Whether the workplace had at least five regularly employed workers
Approximately 100 instructors were working under the same working conditions as the worker. When these instructors are included in the count of regularly employed workers, the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace is at least five.
c. Whether a dismissal existed and whether it was justified
Since the employer unilaterally notified the worker of the termination of the employment relationship, this constitutes a dismissal. Because the employer did not provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal is procedurally unlawful.
d. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
The worker’s application for a monetary compensation order is granted, and the amount of monetary compensation is set at KRW 4,034,050, corresponding to wages for the dismissal period.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Mandatory Retirement (Refusal to Renew Contract)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Mutual Termination (Resignation at Employer’s Recommendation)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (academy instructor), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Mutual Termination (Resignation at Employer’s Recommendation)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to employee status (academy instructor) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Academy Instructor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the worker prevailed in full on the issue of “employee status (academy instructor).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9609 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.18 · Case outcome: Fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
(a) Whether the instructor falls under the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act:
① The employment contract expressly stated that the worker was to perform duties under the employer’s substantial direction and supervision;
② The worker received a fixed salary, and the remuneration was paid as consideration for the provision of labor itself;
③ Working hours and place of work were determined by the employer;
④ Classes were conducted using textbooks designated by the employer and in accordance with a prescribed lesson plan;
⑤ While denying employee status, the employer failed to submit any supporting evidence…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application for remedy filed with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission in relation to the unfair dismissal of an academy instructor, in which the Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision fully upholding the worker’s claims. The worker applied for a monetary compensation order instead of reinstatement to the original position, and the Commission ordered the employer to pay KRW 4,034,050 as wages corresponding to the dismissal period.
This is a typical unfair dismissal case in which the following issues arose together: the employee status of the academy instructor, whether the number of regularly employed workers was at least five, the existence and legitimacy of the dismissal, and whether a monetary compensation order should be granted.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were: “Whether the academy instructor qualifies as an ‘employee’ under the Labor Standards Act, whether the academy’s number of regularly employed workers is at least five, whether the employer’s unilateral notice of termination of the employment relationship constitutes a dismissal and, if so, whether it is justified, and how the monetary compensation order should be recognized.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that: ① the employment contract specified that the worker was to perform duties under the employer’s substantial direction and supervision; ② the worker received a fixed salary and that remuneration was paid as consideration for the provision of labor itself; ③ working hours and place of work were determined by the employer and the worker was bound thereby; ④ classes were conducted using textbooks designated by the employer and in accordance with a prescribed lesson plan; and ⑤ although the employer denied the worker’s employee status, it failed to present any evidence supporting that position.
In light of the above, the panel held that, regardless of the formal label, the worker in substance provided labor under a subordinate relationship to the employer for the purpose of earning wages, and thus fell within the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act.
The panel further found that approximately 100 instructors were working under the same conditions as the worker, and that, when these instructors are included in the count of regularly employed workers, the workplace must be regarded as having at least five regularly employed workers.
In addition, since the employer unilaterally notified the worker of the termination of the employment relationship, this constituted a “dismissal” as contemplated by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Because the employer failed to notify the worker in writing of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal was procedurally unlawful and void, irrespective of whether it was substantively justified.
Moreover, considering that the worker applied for monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, and that the amount of wages corresponding to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision could be calculated, the Commission granted the application for a monetary compensation order and ordered payment of KRW 4,034,050 as wages corresponding to the dismissal period.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Academy instructors and instructors engaged under “freelance” arrangements should bear in mind that, even if the contract is labeled “freelance” or “outsourcing,” they may still be recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act if, in reality, they work under the employer’s direction and supervision, at fixed times and places, and receive a fixed salary. In particular, if there are multiple instructors working under the same conditions, it is highly likely that the threshold of five or more regularly employed workers will be met, thereby increasing the likelihood of enjoying broad protections under the Labor Standards Act, such as applications for remedy for unfair dismissal, annual paid leave, and notice of dismissal.
Furthermore, if the employer merely notifies the worker orally or by text message to “stop coming to work” without providing a written notice stating the reasons and timing of dismissal, there is a high possibility of obtaining a decision of invalid dismissal or a monetary compensation order through an application for remedy for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, it is important to record and preserve, as concretely as possible, the contents and circumstances surrounding the dismissal notice at the time it is given.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the perspective of academies and education service providers, even if instructors are referred to as “freelancers,” if in practice there is a high degree of subordination—such as direction and supervision, payment of a fixed salary, and specification of working hours and place of work—employee status may be recognized. In particular, where there are many instructors working under the same conditions, it is highly likely that the workplace will be deemed to have at least five regularly employed workers. Employers should therefore design their HR and labor-management structures on that premise and review and refine their work rules, contracts, and operating practices so that the provisions of the Labor Standards Act on dismissal, annual leave, wages, and so forth are complied with.
In addition, when terminating an employment contract, employers should not merely issue a simple “notice of contract termination,” but must provide a written notice clearly stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Failure to do so may render the dismissal itself void due to procedural defects, and may give rise to additional risks such as a finding of unfair dismissal, a monetary compensation order, and enforcement fines.
In this type of case, what is important for both workers and employers is to accurately understand the legal principles governing the determination of employee status based on substance over form, and the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal, and to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the early stages to prevent and manage disputes.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the worker qualifies as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act
In light of: ① the fact that the employment contract specified that the worker was to perform duties under the employer’s substantial direction and supervision; ② the fact that the worker received a fixed salary and that the remuneration was paid as consideration for the provision of labor itself; ③ the fact that working hours and place of work were determined by the employer; ④ the fact that classes were conducted using textbooks designated by the employer and in accordance with a prescribed lesson plan; and ⑤ the fact that, although denying the worker’s employee status, the employer submitted no evidence to support that position, the worker is deemed to fall within the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act.
b. Whether the workplace had at least five regularly employed workers
Approximately 100 instructors were working under the same working conditions as the worker. When these instructors are included in the count of regularly employed workers, the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace is at least five.
c. Whether a dismissal existed and whether it was justified
Since the employer unilaterally notified the worker of the termination of the employment relationship, this constitutes a dismissal. Because the employer did not provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal is procedurally unlawful.
d. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
The worker’s application for a monetary compensation order is granted, and the amount of monetary compensation is set at KRW 4,034,050, corresponding to wages for the dismissal period.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Whether the worker qualifies as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act
In light of: ① the fact that the employment contract specified that the worker was to perform duties under the employer’s substantial direction and supervision; ② the fact that the worker received a fixed salary and that the remuneration was paid as consideration for the provision of labor itself; ③ the fact that working hours and place of work were determined by the employer; ④ the fact that classes were conducted using textbooks designated by the employer and in accordance with a prescribed lesson plan; and ⑤ the fact that, although denying the worker’s employee status, the employer submitted no evidence to support that position, the worker is deemed to fall within the definition of “employee” under the Labor Standards Act.
b. Whether the workplace had at least five regularly employed workers
Approximately 100 instructors were working under the same working conditions as the worker. When these instructors are included in the count of regularly employed workers, the number of regularly employed workers at the workplace is at least five.
c. Whether a dismissal existed and whether it was justified
Since the employer unilaterally notified the worker of the termination of the employment relationship, this constitutes a dismissal. Because the employer did not provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, the dismissal is procedurally unlawful.
d. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
The worker’s application for a monetary compensation order is granted, and the amount of monetary compensation is set at KRW 4,034,050, corresponding to wages for the dismissal period.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Mandatory Retirement (Refusal to Renew Contract)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Mutual Termination (Resignation at Employer’s Recommendation)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status (academy instructor), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Mutual Termination (Resignation at Employer’s Recommendation)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to employee status (academy instructor) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Academy Instructor).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
