On October 31, 2025, the Seoul Southern District Court dismissed a labor union’s lawsuit that sought to verify the union membership eligibility of certain job holders under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (the “TULRAA”) (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2024Gahap102555, October 31, 2025). The decision became final and conclusive without appeal.
The labor union argued that such job holders fall under the category of “workers” as defined under the TULRAA and should not be deemed “employers” as they do not possess the ultimate authority to determine their working conditions, including personnel matters, wages and welfare benefits.
The Supreme Court has previously held that a lawsuit for the court’s confirmation can only be filed (i) when there is an existing insecurity or risk regarding the plaintiff’s right or legal status, and (ii) when obtaining the court’s confirmation/judgment is the most effective and appropriate means to fundamentally resolve the dispute at issue (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da30803, June 29, 2017, among others).
Abiding by this legal principle, the court in this case found that the lawsuit was not the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the existing insecurity or risk concerning the labor union’s legal status. The court referred to the availability of other methods to directly resolve the pending dispute regarding the scope of union membership eligibility.
More specifically, the court referred to (i) the option of filing a lawsuit for nullification of the union’s resolution or injunction if the validity of the resolution were to be disputed based on the number of union members, and (ii) the option of filing an unfair labor practice claim or a lawsuit seeking to enforce performance of the collective bargaining agreement. On such basis, the court dismissed the labor union’s request for confirmation.
The TULRAA defines an “employer” as “a business owner, a person responsible for the management of the business, or a person who acts on behalf of the business owner regarding matters concerning the workers of the business,” and under the TULRAA, “employers” are prohibited from joining a labor union. The phrase “a person who acts on behalf of the business owner regarding matters concerning the workers of the business” represents a legal concept that requires further interpretation. In practice, the main issue is whether manager-level employees within a company, such as team leaders or department heads, meet this requirement and can therefore be considered “employers.”
While the TULRAA does not provide an express dispute resolution process to confirm the status of such employees, if a dispute does arise, the labor union can resolve such dispute by using more direct legal remedies available under the law (e.g., unfair labor practice claim, lawsuit to enforce performance of the collective bargaining agreement, lawsuit seeking prevention of interference with union activities, and complaint or criminal charge for unfair labor practices).
This judgment is significant because it concerns a lawsuit filed directly by a labor union against a company to determine the scope of union membership eligibility. The court ruled that a lawsuit seeking confirmation of a worker’s status against the employer cannot be considered as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the existing insecurity or risk regarding the labor union’s legal status, and thus dismissed the labor union’s claim.
