Atlas Legal published detailed commentary on two rulings of the Supreme Court of Korea issued on April 16, 2026 — Decisions 2022Da225606 and 2022Da225590 — addressing worker-status confirmation claims against the same steel mill principal, where outcomes diverged by function under an identical legal test.
Case Overview
Both rulings addressed worker-status confirmation claims brought by in-house subcontracted workers at the same steel mill principal. Decision 2022Da225606 involved eight plaintiffs across packaging and factory functions; Decision 2022Da225590 involved 215 plaintiffs across raw material unloading, ladle management, roll maintenance, and blended raw material production. Both cases reached the Supreme Court of Korea from the Gwangju High Court judgments dated February 9, 2022.
The Five-Factor Dispatch Test
The Supreme Court of Korea reaffirmed the substance-over-form five-factor test from Decision 2010Da106436 (February 26, 2015): (i) binding supervision, (ii) substantive integration, (iii) nominal employer autonomy, (iv) defined scope and specialization, and (v) independent business organization. Contract labels such as “service contract” or “subcontract” do not control — the actual working relationship determines whether dispatch is established under the Dispatch Act.
Packaging Work — Dispatch Denied
In Decision 2022Da225606, the Court reversed the dispatch finding for cold-rolled product packaging (seven plaintiffs). Decisive facts included the subcontractor’s KOSDAQ listing since 1997, revenues exceeding KRW 100 billion, patent filings on packaging equipment from 2004, ownership and installation of core packaging facilities at the principal’s steel mill, and operational history of packaging work since 1976 — evidence of genuine specialization and independent business organization.
Raw Material and Processing Functions — Dispatch Affirmed
In Decision 2022Da225590, the Court affirmed dispatch findings across all four functional groups. Key factors included real-time principal instructions via electronic systems and email, tight operational coupling with the principal’s production and procurement planning, headcount-based compensation rather than output-based pricing, and principal-initiated workforce reduction plans that the subcontractor implemented through dismissals. Core facilities were owned by the principal rather than the subcontractors.
The Decisive Divide
Comparing the two rulings, Factor 4 (defined scope and specialization) and Factor 5 (independent business organization) anchored the analysis. When a subcontractor holds genuine technical know-how, intellectual property, and independent operational footprint, those facts reshape how Factor 1 (binding supervision) is interpreted — principal-provided work standards cease to be treated as binding dispatch-style direction. This interactive effect among the five factors is the most significant practical takeaway for principals operating in South Korea.
Declaratory Interest Issue
Decision 2022Da225590 also dismissed one plaintiff’s claim on declaratory-interest grounds after that plaintiff reached the principal’s retirement age of 60 during the pending appeal. Because restoration of employee status had become impossible, declaratory relief could no longer serve as the most effective remedy. Plaintiffs in long-running dispatch-recognition cases in South Korea should plead monetary claims — unpaid wages and damages — jointly to preserve recovery.
Atlas Legal’s Expertise
Atlas Legal is a corporate law firm based in Incheon Songdo, South Korea, with advisory and litigation experience in in-house subcontracting structures, Dispatch Act compliance audits, and worker-status confirmation litigation for manufacturing and heavy industry clients. Our labor and employment, corporate advisory, and corporate disputes practices focus on operational substance — not contract wording — as the decisive variable in dispatch risk.
Click here for detailed information
Worker Dispatch vs Subcontracting in South Korea: Supreme Court’s April 2026 Rulings
Atlas Legal published detailed commentary on two rulings of the Supreme Court of Korea issued on April 16, 2026 — Decisions 2022Da225606 and 2022Da225590 — addressing worker-status confirmation claims against the same steel mill principal, where outcomes diverged by function under an identical legal test.
Case Overview
Both rulings addressed worker-status confirmation claims brought by in-house subcontracted workers at the same steel mill principal. Decision 2022Da225606 involved eight plaintiffs across packaging and factory functions; Decision 2022Da225590 involved 215 plaintiffs across raw material unloading, ladle management, roll maintenance, and blended raw material production. Both cases reached the Supreme Court of Korea from the Gwangju High Court judgments dated February 9, 2022.
The Five-Factor Dispatch Test
The Supreme Court of Korea reaffirmed the substance-over-form five-factor test from Decision 2010Da106436 (February 26, 2015): (i) binding supervision, (ii) substantive integration, (iii) nominal employer autonomy, (iv) defined scope and specialization, and (v) independent business organization. Contract labels such as “service contract” or “subcontract” do not control — the actual working relationship determines whether dispatch is established under the Dispatch Act.
Packaging Work — Dispatch Denied
In Decision 2022Da225606, the Court reversed the dispatch finding for cold-rolled product packaging (seven plaintiffs). Decisive facts included the subcontractor’s KOSDAQ listing since 1997, revenues exceeding KRW 100 billion, patent filings on packaging equipment from 2004, ownership and installation of core packaging facilities at the principal’s steel mill, and operational history of packaging work since 1976 — evidence of genuine specialization and independent business organization.
Raw Material and Processing Functions — Dispatch Affirmed
In Decision 2022Da225590, the Court affirmed dispatch findings across all four functional groups. Key factors included real-time principal instructions via electronic systems and email, tight operational coupling with the principal’s production and procurement planning, headcount-based compensation rather than output-based pricing, and principal-initiated workforce reduction plans that the subcontractor implemented through dismissals. Core facilities were owned by the principal rather than the subcontractors.
The Decisive Divide
Comparing the two rulings, Factor 4 (defined scope and specialization) and Factor 5 (independent business organization) anchored the analysis. When a subcontractor holds genuine technical know-how, intellectual property, and independent operational footprint, those facts reshape how Factor 1 (binding supervision) is interpreted — principal-provided work standards cease to be treated as binding dispatch-style direction. This interactive effect among the five factors is the most significant practical takeaway for principals operating in South Korea.
Declaratory Interest Issue
Decision 2022Da225590 also dismissed one plaintiff’s claim on declaratory-interest grounds after that plaintiff reached the principal’s retirement age of 60 during the pending appeal. Because restoration of employee status had become impossible, declaratory relief could no longer serve as the most effective remedy. Plaintiffs in long-running dispatch-recognition cases in South Korea should plead monetary claims — unpaid wages and damages — jointly to preserve recovery.
Atlas Legal’s Expertise
Atlas Legal is a corporate law firm based in Incheon Songdo, South Korea, with advisory and litigation experience in in-house subcontracting structures, Dispatch Act compliance audits, and worker-status confirmation litigation for manufacturing and heavy industry clients. Our labor and employment, corporate advisory, and corporate disputes practices focus on operational substance — not contract wording — as the decisive variable in dispatch risk.
Click here for detailed information