바카라 꽁 머니

1. Case background

① Attorneys Mun Gi-Ju, Back Kwang-Hyun and Jeon Seung-Jae of 바카라 사이트 represented a registered director of a company. He started working for 바카라 꽁 머니 in April 2016 as a team leader. He was registered as director in July 2016 and was unfairly dismissed from office in November 2018. 바카라 꽁 머니, which was incorporated in March 2015, engages in financial service business.

②바카라 꽁 머니 resolved to dismiss him from office at an extraordinary meeting of shareholders held in November 2018, claiming that as COO responsible for HR management and business planning, he had breached his duty to use due care as a fiduciary manager while he had actively participated in the activities of the board of directors and had made key business decisions on the management of 바카라 꽁 머니.

③He filed a petition with Seoul District Labor Commission against 바카라 꽁 머니 for unfair dismissal, arguing that he had been a registered director but he had been an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and that he had been unfairly dismissed at the extraordinary meeting of shareholders held in November 2018 with no legitimate reasons in breach of the established termination procedure.


2. Summary of the decision

On March 25, 2019, Seoul District Labor Commission accepted his petition to remedy the unfair dismissal, holding that the unilateral dismissal constituted termination of the employment relationship, it was unfair for 바카라 꽁 머니 to dismiss him for the reasons of omission of a special resolution, loss of confidence in his management ability, 바카라 꽁 머니 had made a material defect by failing to take a disciplinary procedure and to give him an opportunity to clarify his position when 바카라 꽁 머니 had dismissed him, and therefore, he had been unfairly dismissed.

3. Basis of the decision

In relation to the issue as to whether a registered director constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act, Seoul District Labor Commission held that he constituted an employee under the Labor Standards Act on the basis: (i) he had executed an employment agreement with the employer; (ii) he had merely prepared materials used as basis for making a business decision (e.g., recruitment and evaluation of and increases in salaries for employees) and had not had any practical power; (iii) there was no substantiation of his participation in making decisions at the board of directors; (iv) it could be seen that he had been granted stock options to make up for compensation he had been paid by his former employer; and (v) he had maintained his status under the four social and employment benefits given by the employer to its employees.

4. Barun Law’s argument and role

After thoroughly analyzing legal principles and precedents pertaining to the standards of judging whether a registered director constituted an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and termination events and procedures, Barun Law aggressively made its arguments: (i) he had been a registered director as a matter of formality and had constituted an employee under the Labor Standards Act; (ii) no reasons for dismissal or termination had existed contrary to 바카라 꽁 머니’s arguments; and (iii) 바카라 꽁 머니 had not complied with procedural requirements established in relation to the dismissal or termination of the employees.


5. Implication

The decision has an implication in that in determining whether a nominal registered director constitutes an employee subject to the application of the Labor Standards Act, the substance of subordinate employment relationship acts as a critical element and the court provided specific judgment factors constituting a person’s employment relationship with his/her employer.