The Key Move That Overturned the Trial: 'Comparator Employee'... Yulchon Wins Appeal in Dispatch Lawsuit [Winning Strategy]

Refuted Similarity to Administrative Staff in Essence of Duties

Proved Document Differences Using Python Programming Language

Lawyers Ja-Hyung Koo (from left), Kwangsun Lee, and Minji Kwak from Yulchon LLC are posing. Photo by Dongju Yoon

"Although we contested the direct employment obligation itself at the trial court, we judged that particular point would be difficult to win in reality. Ultimately, the pivotal issue was identifying who would be considered the 'comparator employee.'"

On July 15, Kwangsun Lee, an attorney at Yulchon LLC, explained in an interview with The Asia Business Daily how they managed to overturn the public institution dispatched worker lawsuit during the appeals process. This case began when 20 dispatched workers performing administrative support work at a public institution filed a lawsuit after their two-year dispatch period expired. While the lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Yulchon LLC took over the case at the appellate level and narrowed the key legal issue from whether a direct employment obligation existed to "which employment conditions would apply upon direct employment." They successfully blocked claims for regular 'administrative staff' status and the corresponding standard wage. The court instead accepted only the alternative claims, recognizing the plaintiffs as indefinite-term contract workers and granting them only the wage difference based on the 'clerical assistant' pay scale.

◆Strategy Shift After Losing at Trial

From the outset, Yulchon LLC focused not on denying the violation of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Dispatched Workers itself, but on precisely redefining the comparator employee. The plaintiffs argued that they worked in the same space and drafted similar documents as regular administrative staff. However, Yulchon LLC countered that the two groups' work was fundamentally different, citing stricter hiring procedures, the creativity and decision-making involved, document approval authority, and the degree of mutual interchangeability. The court accepted this, ruling that regular administrative staff were not suitable comparators.

Attorney Minji Kwak commented, "This ruling demonstrates that simply working together in the same office does not, on its face, mean the work is of the same or a similar nature. The actual work performed must be analyzed in detail."

◆Even Presented 'Frequent Words in Documents'

A distinctive aspect of this case was the visual organization of a vast amount of documents. While the plaintiffs argued that they had drafted documents similar to those handled by administrative staff, Yulchon LLC challenged this perception based on document titles and their actual content.

Lawyers Juh Ja-Hyung (left), Lee Kwang-Sun, and Kwak Min-Ji from Yulchon LLC are being interviewed by The Asia Business Daily. Photo by Dongju Yoon

Attorney Jahyung Koo personally developed a Python program to analyze frequent words appearing in documents written by both the plaintiffs and the administrative staff, visualizing the results as word clouds. The analysis revealed—through clear numerical and graphical comparison—that even though the documents appeared outwardly similar, the plaintiffs' documents predominantly featured support work-related terms like 'expenditure,' 'resolution,' and 'business trip,' while administrative staff documents were much more heavily weighted toward planning, evaluation, and research management terminology.

Another strategy put forth by Yulchon LLC in this case was to propose reinstatement notice. In the midst of the lawsuit, they suggested to the public institution that the plaintiffs be formally notified to return to work, in order to prevent additional wage liabilities from accruing. Since it would be hard to outright deny the direct employment obligation, the plan was to proactively propose reinstatement to help narrow the dispute and minimize damages. When the plaintiffs ultimately did not return for an extended period and were subsequently dismissed, the public institution also won in both the first and second instance lawsuits concerning the validity of the dismissals.

Attorney Lee remarked, "Rather than simply acting as litigators, we worked together with the client as in-house counsel might—distinguishing between what to contest or to concede, and setting a practical direction. That approach was significant." This ruling is regarded as a demonstration that, in dispatched worker disputes, the comparator must be determined based on the actual duties performed, not merely by job title, and that an active reinstatement notice strategy can decisively influence subsequent disputes.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.