[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “employee status (inside director / outsourcing of course management).” Decision date: 2026-07-29 · Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해2015 Summary of key issues: A. Whether the worker qualifies as an “employee” under the Labor Standards Act. The worker was registered as an inside director but in fact performed course management duties with the position title of Deputy General Manager (Assistant Department Head), and there was no evidence that he exercised any independent authority over the management of the company. --- 1. Legal Implications This case is an application for relief from unfair dismissal heard by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the Commission recognized that the worker qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, but found that no dismissal itself existed. Based on this case, this article organizes how the Labor Relations Commission distinguishes between employee status and the existence of a dismissal in unfair dismissal disputes, drawing on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅰ. Case Overview The worker was registered as an inside director of the company, but in practice worked with the position title of “Deputy General Manager” in charge of course management, received wages, and was enrolled in the four major social insurance schemes while working. Subsequently, the employer decided to outsource the course management work and pursued a plan to transfer the related personnel to the outsourcing company by way of employment succession, and also offered the worker an opportunity for such employment succession. The worker viewed this process as constituting a de facto unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. The employer argued that the worker was an executive officer, not an employee, and that no dismissal existed. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are: “Where a person registered as an inside director actually worked as a ‘Deputy General Manager’ in charge of course management, does he qualify as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and in the process of outsourcing the course management work and pursuing employment succession, did the employer unilaterally terminate the employment relationship so that a dismissal exists?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings Despite the formal registration as an inside director submitted by the employer, the panel found that the worker in fact performed course management duties with the position title of Deputy General Manager, that there was no evidence that he exercised independent decision-making authority over the management of the company, and that, in light of the economic and social conditions such as the payment of wages and coverage under the four major social insurance schemes, the worker qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. In addition, taking into account that the employer, when outsourcing the course management work, pursued employment succession and offered the worker an opportunity for employment succession; that thereafter the worker voluntarily stopped reporting to work; and that the employer requested that he continue working and return to his original position, the Commission held that it was difficult to view the employer as having unilaterally expressed an intention to terminate the employment relationship. Accordingly, it found that no dismissal existed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be kept in mind that, regardless of the “appearance” of inside director registration or the form of entrusted or subcontracting agreements, if in substance the individual continuously provided labor for the purpose of receiving wages under the direction and supervision of the employer, employee status under the Labor Standards Act may be recognized. However, to obtain relief for unfair dismissal, there must clearly exist an expression of intent by the employer to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship in the form of a dismissal. Therefore, if the worker unilaterally refuses the employer’s proposal for employment succession or request for continued employment and stops reporting to work, there is a risk that the termination will be evaluated not as a dismissal but as a termination of the employment relationship attributable to the worker’s own intent. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, personnel and labor management must be designed on the premise that employee status cannot easily be denied solely based on nominal positions or contractual forms such as inside director, service contract, or freelancer, and that employee status under the Labor Standards Act will be determined based on substantive factors such as the actual relationship of direction and supervision, the method of wage payment, and enrollment in the four major social insurance schemes. Furthermore, in the context of restructuring through outsourcing or collective redundancies where employment succession is pursued, it is very important for dispute prevention to clearly inform employees of the specific conditions of succession and the possibility of continued employment, and to document circumstances showing that there was no intention to dismiss, such as encouraging employees to report to work and requesting their reinstatement to their original positions. In this type of case, the practical key is to accurately understand the Supreme Court’s criteria on subordination for determining employee status and the legal principles on the concept of dismissal (whether there exists an expression of intent by the employer to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship), and to meticulously organize and prove the facts in line with those principles. 2. Matters Decided A. Case overview and procedural history A case in which it was decided that the worker qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, but that no dismissal exists. 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 The worker was registered as an inside director but in fact performed course management duties with the position title of Deputy General Manager, and there is no evidence that he exercised any independent authority over the management of the company. Therefore, considering these circumstances together with the payment of wages and coverage under the four major social insurance schemes, he qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act. B. Whether a dismissal exists In light of the facts that, when outsourcing the course management work, the employer pursued employment succession and offered the worker an opportunity for employment succession; that the worker thereafter did not report to work; and that the employer requested that he continue working and return to his original position, it is difficult to view the employer as having unilaterally terminated the employment relationship. Accordingly, no dismissal exists. [Related Decisions] - Unfair dismissal decision on “Expectation of Employment Succession (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)” - Unfair dismissal decision on “Interest in Relief / Refusal of Re-employment (Post-Retirement Fixed-term Employee)” - Unfair dismissal decision on “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, employee status (inside director / outsourcing of course management), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Existence of Dismissal (Refusal to Accept Resignation Letter)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to employee status (inside director / outsourcing of course management) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Employee Status (Inside Director / Outsourcing of Course Management).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article