Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Employee Status · Written Notice (Service Workers)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 573)
- Date2026/07/26 04:05
- Read 11
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employees prevailed in full on the issues of “employee status · written notice (service workers).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae996 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-22 · Case outcome: Full recognition
Summary of key issues: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, workers who had been working under contracts styled as service/outsourcing contracts with the employer filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that they were in fact “employees” under the Labor Standards Act but had been dismissed. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether they qualified as employees and, in parallel, whether the employer had violated the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act during the dismissal process, and rendered a decision fully in their favor.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are whether, under a contractual structure that formally resembles outsourcing/service contracts, the individuals working thereunder are to be recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act, and whether a dismissal effected only by verbal notification or by filing loss-of-coverage reports for the four major social insurances, etc., can be deemed lawful with respect to such employees.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the workers were devoted to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages, worked at designated places and times, and provided labor in a subordinate relationship under the employer’s specific and individualized direction and supervision; that the workers were not in a structure where they could independently hire third parties to substitute for their work or bear business risks as independent entrepreneurs; and that the remuneration had the character of wages paid continuously and repeatedly as consideration for the labor itself.
In light of these factors, the panel held that the workers fell within the definition of “employees” under the Labor Standards Act.
As to the dismissal in this case, the employer terminated the employment relationships without delivering to the workers a written notice stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the existence, timing, and reasons for the dismissal were not clearly specified, which was found to infringe the workers’ right to defend themselves and to constitute a procedural defect that impedes the fair resolution of dismissal disputes.
The dismissal in this case was ultimately held to violate the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and was therefore determined to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if the form of work is labeled as freelance, outsourcing, service, or entrusted work, if in reality you work under the employer’s direction and supervision at fixed times and places in return for wages, you may qualify as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. In addition, if, upon being notified of dismissal, you did not receive a written document stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission after consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
Even where a contract is formally structured as an outsourcing/service contract, if in actual operation there is a strong element of subordination, the workers may be deemed employees under the Labor Standards Act. Employers should therefore review in advance whether their personnel management structure is consistent with the contractual forms used. Furthermore, all measures to remove workers (including redundancy dismissals, disciplinary dismissals, dismissals ex officio, contract terminations, etc.), regardless of their labels, must satisfy the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Employers must establish and strictly observe internal procedures for delivering written notices that specifically state the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.
This type of decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, challenges to employee status and issues concerning violations of the written notice requirement for dismissal can be combined as core issues. In similar cases, it is important to carefully organize the facts and thoroughly review the legal principles from the outset.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the workers qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act
The workers were found to be employees under the Labor Standards Act, having provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages.
b. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer, in dismissing the workers, violated the written notice requirement for dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and the dismissal therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Whether the workers qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act
The workers were found to be employees under the Labor Standards Act, having provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages.
b. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer, in dismissing the workers, violated the written notice requirement for dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and the dismissal therefore constituted an unfair dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status · written notice (service workers), 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 Probationary Dismissal (Refusal to Confirm Intern as Regular Employee),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to employee status · written notice (service workers) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status · Written Notice (Service Workers).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employees prevailed in full on the issues of “employee status · written notice (service workers).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae996 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-22 · Case outcome: Full recognition
Summary of key issues: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, workers who had been working under contracts styled as service/outsourcing contracts with the employer filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that they were in fact “employees” under the Labor Standards Act but had been dismissed. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether they qualified as employees and, in parallel, whether the employer had violated the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act during the dismissal process, and rendered a decision fully in their favor.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issues in this case are whether, under a contractual structure that formally resembles outsourcing/service contracts, the individuals working thereunder are to be recognized as employees under the Labor Standards Act, and whether a dismissal effected only by verbal notification or by filing loss-of-coverage reports for the four major social insurances, etc., can be deemed lawful with respect to such employees.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the workers were devoted to the employer for the purpose of receiving wages, worked at designated places and times, and provided labor in a subordinate relationship under the employer’s specific and individualized direction and supervision; that the workers were not in a structure where they could independently hire third parties to substitute for their work or bear business risks as independent entrepreneurs; and that the remuneration had the character of wages paid continuously and repeatedly as consideration for the labor itself.
In light of these factors, the panel held that the workers fell within the definition of “employees” under the Labor Standards Act.
As to the dismissal in this case, the employer terminated the employment relationships without delivering to the workers a written notice stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required by Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the existence, timing, and reasons for the dismissal were not clearly specified, which was found to infringe the workers’ right to defend themselves and to constitute a procedural defect that impedes the fair resolution of dismissal disputes.
The dismissal in this case was ultimately held to violate the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and was therefore determined to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if the form of work is labeled as freelance, outsourcing, service, or entrusted work, if in reality you work under the employer’s direction and supervision at fixed times and places in return for wages, you may qualify as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. In addition, if, upon being notified of dismissal, you did not receive a written document stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, you should consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission after consulting with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
Even where a contract is formally structured as an outsourcing/service contract, if in actual operation there is a strong element of subordination, the workers may be deemed employees under the Labor Standards Act. Employers should therefore review in advance whether their personnel management structure is consistent with the contractual forms used. Furthermore, all measures to remove workers (including redundancy dismissals, disciplinary dismissals, dismissals ex officio, contract terminations, etc.), regardless of their labels, must satisfy the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Employers must establish and strictly observe internal procedures for delivering written notices that specifically state the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.
This type of decision illustrates that, in unfair dismissal disputes, challenges to employee status and issues concerning violations of the written notice requirement for dismissal can be combined as core issues. In similar cases, it is important to carefully organize the facts and thoroughly review the legal principles from the outset.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the workers qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act
The workers were found to be employees under the Labor Standards Act, having provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages.
b. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer, in dismissing the workers, violated the written notice requirement for dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and the dismissal therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Whether the workers qualify as employees under the Labor Standards Act
The workers were found to be employees under the Labor Standards Act, having provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages.
b. Whether the dismissal was justified
The employer, in dismissing the workers, violated the written notice requirement for dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and the dismissal therefore constituted an unfair dismissal. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status · written notice (service workers), 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 Probationary Dismissal (Refusal to Confirm Intern as Regular Employee),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to employee status · written notice (service workers) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status · Written Notice (Service Workers).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
