Corporate trends / Performance record
Denial of Employee Status (Academy Instructor Commission Agreement) in Unfair Dismissal Relief Case (Unfair Dismissal 41)
- Date2026/01/04 04:08
- Read 214
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision concerning “Denial of employee status (academy instructor commission agreement)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal198 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.25
- Summary of outcome: Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant entered into an instructor commission agreement with the respondent, under which the applicant was to determine on their own the time and manner of performing work, commuting, etc., and to perform the work independently without being subject to direction or supervision; (ii) even based on the submitted group chat records, counseling status, work logs, and minutes of meetings…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, an academy instructor who had entered into an instructor commission agreement with an academy filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the termination of their contract constituted unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the applicant qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal on the ground that employee status could not be recognized.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is whether “an instructor who has entered into an instructor commission agreement with an academy and conducted classes qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and may therefore file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the applicant, under the instructor commission agreement, was to decide independently on class times, teaching methods, and commuting, and to perform work independently without the respondent’s specific direction or supervision; that, based on the submitted materials such as group chat records, counseling status, work logs, and minutes of meetings, it was difficult to find that there had been personnel or service control such as an obligation to observe fixed working hours or to attend regular meetings; and that the applicant could perform the same work at other academies, and that the economic and social appearance of the relationship was distinguishable from that of an employee in that there was no base salary, remuneration was settled as a 50:50 commission on sales, 3.3% business income tax was withheld at source, and the applicant was not enrolled in the four major social insurance schemes.
Accordingly, the panel determined that it was difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to an employer for the purpose of receiving wages.
Therefore, the applicant does not fall within the definition of “employee” under Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act and thus lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and the application was dismissed on the ground that this dismissal did not reach the stage where the unfairness of the dismissal itself could be examined.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Academy instructors, freelancers, and those working under commission or subcontracting arrangements should bear in mind that employee status is not automatically denied solely because of the title of the contract, 3.3% withholding, or non-enrollment in the four major social insurance schemes. The core question is, in practice, under whose direction and supervision you worked, in what manner, and how exclusively. To contest an unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, you must prove that you were an employee in a relationship of subordination to the employer. You should therefore routinely preserve objective evidence of matters such as control over commuting, designated working hours, the method of class allocation, and any instructions or disciplinary measures relating to personnel or service management.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
Academies, educational institutions, platform operators, and others who utilize instructors or freelancers under commission or subcontracting arrangements should recognize that if, in actual operation, they strongly control working hours and places of work or manage such individuals through personnel and service regulations, there is a high risk that employee status will be recognized. Through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, you should adjust not only the form of your contracts but also your operational practices so that they align with the criteria for determining employee status, and you should preemptively review factors that may be problematic before the Labor Relations Commission in the event of an unfair dismissal dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant entered into an instructor commission agreement with the respondent, under which the applicant was to determine on their own the time and manner of performing work, commuting, etc., and to perform the work independently without being subject to direction or supervision; (ii) even based on the submitted group chat records, counseling status, work logs, and minutes of meetings, there are no circumstances confirming that the applicant was subject to an obligation to observe fixed working hours or to attend regular meetings, or otherwise to personnel or service control, and all such materials appear to have been for the purpose of sharing information and cooperating regarding class operations and student management; (iii) in addition, under the instructor commission agreement, the applicant was able to perform the same work at other academies, so exclusivity is not recognized, and the economic and social appearance of the relationship is also distinguishable from that of an employee in that there was no base salary, remuneration was settled as a 50:50 commission on sales, 3.3% business income tax was withheld at source, and the applicant was not enrolled in the four major social insurance schemes. In light of all of the above, it is difficult to recognize the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who, in substance, provided labor in a relationship of subordination to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages. Therefore, the applicant lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant entered into an instructor commission agreement with the respondent, under which the applicant was to determine on their own the time and manner of performing work, commuting, etc., and to perform the work independently without being subject to direction or supervision; (ii) even based on the submitted group chat records, counseling status, work logs, and minutes of meetings, there are no circumstances confirming that the applicant was subject to an obligation to observe fixed working hours or to attend regular meetings, or otherwise to personnel or service control, and all such materials appear to have been for the purpose of sharing information and cooperating regarding class operations and student management; (iii) in addition, under the instructor commission agreement, the applicant was able to perform the same work at other academies, so exclusivity is not recognized, and the economic and social appearance of the relationship is also distinguishable from that of an employee in that there was no base salary, remuneration was settled as a 50:50 commission on sales, 3.3% business income tax was withheld at source, and the applicant was not enrolled in the four major social insurance schemes. In light of all of the above, it is difficult to recognize the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who, in substance, provided labor in a relationship of subordination to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages. Therefore, the applicant lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Failure to Comply with Correction Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Decision-making body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9045 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
- “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Loss from Credit Sales of Goods)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully upheld
- “‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice·Four Major Insurances)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (academy instructor commission agreement), 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, “‘Lapse of Application Period (10 Days for Re-Examination)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to denial of employee status (academy instructor commission agreement) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Academy Instructor Commission Agreement).”
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision concerning “Denial of employee status (academy instructor commission agreement)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal198 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.25
- Summary of outcome: Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant entered into an instructor commission agreement with the respondent, under which the applicant was to determine on their own the time and manner of performing work, commuting, etc., and to perform the work independently without being subject to direction or supervision; (ii) even based on the submitted group chat records, counseling status, work logs, and minutes of meetings…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, an academy instructor who had entered into an instructor commission agreement with an academy filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the termination of their contract constituted unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the applicant qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal on the ground that employee status could not be recognized.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is whether “an instructor who has entered into an instructor commission agreement with an academy and conducted classes qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act and may therefore file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the applicant, under the instructor commission agreement, was to decide independently on class times, teaching methods, and commuting, and to perform work independently without the respondent’s specific direction or supervision; that, based on the submitted materials such as group chat records, counseling status, work logs, and minutes of meetings, it was difficult to find that there had been personnel or service control such as an obligation to observe fixed working hours or to attend regular meetings; and that the applicant could perform the same work at other academies, and that the economic and social appearance of the relationship was distinguishable from that of an employee in that there was no base salary, remuneration was settled as a 50:50 commission on sales, 3.3% business income tax was withheld at source, and the applicant was not enrolled in the four major social insurance schemes.
Accordingly, the panel determined that it was difficult to regard the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor in a subordinate relationship to an employer for the purpose of receiving wages.
Therefore, the applicant does not fall within the definition of “employee” under Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act and thus lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and the application was dismissed on the ground that this dismissal did not reach the stage where the unfairness of the dismissal itself could be examined.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Academy instructors, freelancers, and those working under commission or subcontracting arrangements should bear in mind that employee status is not automatically denied solely because of the title of the contract, 3.3% withholding, or non-enrollment in the four major social insurance schemes. The core question is, in practice, under whose direction and supervision you worked, in what manner, and how exclusively. To contest an unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, you must prove that you were an employee in a relationship of subordination to the employer. You should therefore routinely preserve objective evidence of matters such as control over commuting, designated working hours, the method of class allocation, and any instructions or disciplinary measures relating to personnel or service management.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
Academies, educational institutions, platform operators, and others who utilize instructors or freelancers under commission or subcontracting arrangements should recognize that if, in actual operation, they strongly control working hours and places of work or manage such individuals through personnel and service regulations, there is a high risk that employee status will be recognized. Through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, you should adjust not only the form of your contracts but also your operational practices so that they align with the criteria for determining employee status, and you should preemptively review factors that may be problematic before the Labor Relations Commission in the event of an unfair dismissal dispute.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant entered into an instructor commission agreement with the respondent, under which the applicant was to determine on their own the time and manner of performing work, commuting, etc., and to perform the work independently without being subject to direction or supervision; (ii) even based on the submitted group chat records, counseling status, work logs, and minutes of meetings, there are no circumstances confirming that the applicant was subject to an obligation to observe fixed working hours or to attend regular meetings, or otherwise to personnel or service control, and all such materials appear to have been for the purpose of sharing information and cooperating regarding class operations and student management; (iii) in addition, under the instructor commission agreement, the applicant was able to perform the same work at other academies, so exclusivity is not recognized, and the economic and social appearance of the relationship is also distinguishable from that of an employee in that there was no base salary, remuneration was settled as a 50:50 commission on sales, 3.3% business income tax was withheld at source, and the applicant was not enrolled in the four major social insurance schemes. In light of all of the above, it is difficult to recognize the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who, in substance, provided labor in a relationship of subordination to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages. Therefore, the applicant lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Whether the applicant is an employee under the Labor Standards Act: (i) the applicant entered into an instructor commission agreement with the respondent, under which the applicant was to determine on their own the time and manner of performing work, commuting, etc., and to perform the work independently without being subject to direction or supervision; (ii) even based on the submitted group chat records, counseling status, work logs, and minutes of meetings, there are no circumstances confirming that the applicant was subject to an obligation to observe fixed working hours or to attend regular meetings, or otherwise to personnel or service control, and all such materials appear to have been for the purpose of sharing information and cooperating regarding class operations and student management; (iii) in addition, under the instructor commission agreement, the applicant was able to perform the same work at other academies, so exclusivity is not recognized, and the economic and social appearance of the relationship is also distinguishable from that of an employee in that there was no base salary, remuneration was settled as a 50:50 commission on sales, 3.3% business income tax was withheld at source, and the applicant was not enrolled in the four major social insurance schemes. In light of all of the above, it is difficult to recognize the applicant as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who, in substance, provided labor in a relationship of subordination to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages. Therefore, the applicant lacks standing as a proper party to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal (Failure to Comply with Correction Order)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Decision-making body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal9045 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
- “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Loss from Credit Sales of Goods)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully upheld
- “‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice·Four Major Insurances)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, denial of employee status (academy instructor commission agreement), 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, “‘Lapse of Application Period (10 Days for Re-Examination)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to denial of employee status (academy instructor commission agreement) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Denial of Employee Status (Academy Instructor Commission Agreement).”
