Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Lapse of Exclusion Period (Expiration of Fixed-Term Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 217)
- Date2026/02/19 04:13
- Read 227
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “lapse of the exclusion period (expiration of a fixed-term employment contract).”
Decision Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae4169 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 10, 2025 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue:
□ Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed.
An application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be filed within three months from the date on which the dismissal or other disadvantageous disposition occurred. This is an exclusion period for administrative relief of rights, and once this period has elapsed, the right is automatically extinguished. The period is calculated from the date of dismissal, regardless of when the employee subjectively became aware of the dismissal or when a court judgment became final and conclusive. Between the parties, a fixed-term employment contract was concluded in 2023 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee who had entered into a fixed-term employment contract and, after the contract period expired, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the admissibility of the case primarily on the question of whether the employee’s application had been filed more than three months after the date of the dismissal or other disadvantageous disposition. Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal on the ground that the exclusion period had lapsed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is: “When a fixed-term employment contract expires on the agreed date, from what point is the three‑month exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal calculated, and may the Labor Relations Commission hear an application that has been filed after the exclusion period has lapsed?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case relied on the following grounds: an application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be filed within three months from the date on which the dismissal or other disadvantageous disposition occurred; this period constitutes an “exclusion period” for administrative relief of rights, and once it has elapsed, the right is automatically extinguished; and the period is calculated from the objective date of dismissal (or the contract expiration date), regardless of when the employee subjectively became aware of the dismissal or contract expiration, or when any related court judgment became final and conclusive.
A fixed-term employment contract specifying the period from December 7, 2023 to March 6, 2024 was concluded between the parties, and there was no dispute as to the contract end date. Even assuming there was a dispute as to whether the notice of contract termination had been received, the starting point for calculating the application period for remedy must be deemed, at the latest, to be the contract expiration date. Nevertheless, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission only on October 10, 2025, approximately one year and six months later. Taking these circumstances together, the panel determined that the dismissal in this case was the subject of an inadmissible application filed after the exclusion period had lapsed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, regardless of the form of unfair dismissal—such as redundancy dismissal, expiration of a fixed-term employment contract, or disciplinary dismissal—you must keep firmly in mind that the application for remedy must be filed with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date of dismissal or contract expiration, not from the date on which you “came to know” of it. Because an exclusion period cannot be reinstated once it has passed, if you feel that the company’s action is unfair, you should promptly consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and prepare for the Labor Relations Commission procedures without delay.
In addition, in the case of a fixed-term employment contract with a clearly specified contract period, the employment relationship may terminate solely upon arrival of the contract expiration date stated in the contract, even without a separate notice of dismissal. Therefore, regardless of whether the company provides any notice before or after expiration, it is safest to calculate the three‑month period based on the “contract expiration date.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, once the three‑month exclusion period under Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 82 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act has elapsed, the right to seek administrative relief before the Labor Relations Commission is extinguished. Accordingly, for applications for remedy for unfair dismissal filed long after the dispute arose, you should first examine whether the exclusion period has lapsed. However, if you rely solely on the lapse of the exclusion period and neglect proper HR and labor management, the matter may develop into other types of disputes, such as civil lawsuits. It is therefore advisable to establish a management system that clearly documents contract periods, dismissal dates, and dates of disciplinary notices, and that can prove delivery and receipt of such documents.
In particular, for fixed-term employment contracts, it is important to clearly state the start and end dates and to record in writing the company’s position on renewal or non‑renewal. Only when such basic documentation is in place can you clearly substantiate, before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, the exclusion period and the point in time at which the contractual relationship ended.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
□ Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed
An application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be filed within three months from the date on which the dismissal or other disadvantageous disposition occurred. This is an exclusion period for administrative relief of rights, and once this period has elapsed, the right is automatically extinguished. The period is calculated from the date of dismissal, regardless of when the employee subjectively became aware of the dismissal or when a court judgment became final and conclusive. A fixed-term employment contract specifying the period from December 7, 2023 to March 6, 2024 was concluded between the parties, and there is no dispute as to the contract end date. Even assuming there is a dispute as to whether the notice of contract termination was received, the starting point for calculating the application period for remedy must be deemed, at the latest, to be the contract expiration date. However, the employee filed the application for remedy on October 10, 2025, after approximately one year and six months had elapsed. Accordingly, this is an inadmissible application filed after the exclusion period had lapsed.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
□ Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed
An application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be filed within three months from the date on which the dismissal or other disadvantageous disposition occurred. This is an exclusion period for administrative relief of rights, and once this period has elapsed, the right is automatically extinguished. The period is calculated from the date of dismissal, regardless of when the employee subjectively became aware of the dismissal or when a court judgment became final and conclusive. A fixed-term employment contract specifying the period from December 7, 2023 to March 6, 2024 was concluded between the parties, and there is no dispute as to the contract end date. Even assuming there is a dispute as to whether the notice of contract termination was received, the starting point for calculating the application period for remedy must be deemed, at the latest, to be the contract expiration date. However, the employee filed the application for remedy on October 10, 2025, after approximately one year and six months had elapsed. Accordingly, this is an inadmissible application filed after the exclusion period had lapsed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Probationary Termination (Acceptance of Resignation Recommendation)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Exercise of Probationary Termination Right (Three Instances of Poor Evaluation)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First‑Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, lapse of exclusion period (expiration of fixed-term employment contract), refusal to renew fixed‑term contract, 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Exercise of Probationary Termination Right (Three Instances of Poor Evaluation) Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to lapse of exclusion period (expiration of fixed-term employment contract) can be viewed together in the “Lapse of Exclusion Period (Expiration of Fixed-Term Employment Contract) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that was procedurally dismissed on the issue of “lapse of the exclusion period (expiration of a fixed-term employment contract).”
Decision Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae4169 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 10, 2025 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issue:
□ Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed.
An application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be filed within three months from the date on which the dismissal or other disadvantageous disposition occurred. This is an exclusion period for administrative relief of rights, and once this period has elapsed, the right is automatically extinguished. The period is calculated from the date of dismissal, regardless of when the employee subjectively became aware of the dismissal or when a court judgment became final and conclusive. Between the parties, a fixed-term employment contract was concluded in 2023 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee who had entered into a fixed-term employment contract and, after the contract period expired, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the admissibility of the case primarily on the question of whether the employee’s application had been filed more than three months after the date of the dismissal or other disadvantageous disposition. Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal on the ground that the exclusion period had lapsed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is: “When a fixed-term employment contract expires on the agreed date, from what point is the three‑month exclusion period for filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal calculated, and may the Labor Relations Commission hear an application that has been filed after the exclusion period has lapsed?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case relied on the following grounds: an application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be filed within three months from the date on which the dismissal or other disadvantageous disposition occurred; this period constitutes an “exclusion period” for administrative relief of rights, and once it has elapsed, the right is automatically extinguished; and the period is calculated from the objective date of dismissal (or the contract expiration date), regardless of when the employee subjectively became aware of the dismissal or contract expiration, or when any related court judgment became final and conclusive.
A fixed-term employment contract specifying the period from December 7, 2023 to March 6, 2024 was concluded between the parties, and there was no dispute as to the contract end date. Even assuming there was a dispute as to whether the notice of contract termination had been received, the starting point for calculating the application period for remedy must be deemed, at the latest, to be the contract expiration date. Nevertheless, the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission only on October 10, 2025, approximately one year and six months later. Taking these circumstances together, the panel determined that the dismissal in this case was the subject of an inadmissible application filed after the exclusion period had lapsed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, regardless of the form of unfair dismissal—such as redundancy dismissal, expiration of a fixed-term employment contract, or disciplinary dismissal—you must keep firmly in mind that the application for remedy must be filed with the Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date of dismissal or contract expiration, not from the date on which you “came to know” of it. Because an exclusion period cannot be reinstated once it has passed, if you feel that the company’s action is unfair, you should promptly consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and prepare for the Labor Relations Commission procedures without delay.
In addition, in the case of a fixed-term employment contract with a clearly specified contract period, the employment relationship may terminate solely upon arrival of the contract expiration date stated in the contract, even without a separate notice of dismissal. Therefore, regardless of whether the company provides any notice before or after expiration, it is safest to calculate the three‑month period based on the “contract expiration date.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, once the three‑month exclusion period under Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 82 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act has elapsed, the right to seek administrative relief before the Labor Relations Commission is extinguished. Accordingly, for applications for remedy for unfair dismissal filed long after the dispute arose, you should first examine whether the exclusion period has lapsed. However, if you rely solely on the lapse of the exclusion period and neglect proper HR and labor management, the matter may develop into other types of disputes, such as civil lawsuits. It is therefore advisable to establish a management system that clearly documents contract periods, dismissal dates, and dates of disciplinary notices, and that can prove delivery and receipt of such documents.
In particular, for fixed-term employment contracts, it is important to clearly state the start and end dates and to record in writing the company’s position on renewal or non‑renewal. Only when such basic documentation is in place can you clearly substantiate, before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, the exclusion period and the point in time at which the contractual relationship ended.
(ⓒ2025 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&)
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
□ Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed
An application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be filed within three months from the date on which the dismissal or other disadvantageous disposition occurred. This is an exclusion period for administrative relief of rights, and once this period has elapsed, the right is automatically extinguished. The period is calculated from the date of dismissal, regardless of when the employee subjectively became aware of the dismissal or when a court judgment became final and conclusive. A fixed-term employment contract specifying the period from December 7, 2023 to March 6, 2024 was concluded between the parties, and there is no dispute as to the contract end date. Even assuming there is a dispute as to whether the notice of contract termination was received, the starting point for calculating the application period for remedy must be deemed, at the latest, to be the contract expiration date. However, the employee filed the application for remedy on October 10, 2025, after approximately one year and six months had elapsed. Accordingly, this is an inadmissible application filed after the exclusion period had lapsed.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
□ Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed
An application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be filed within three months from the date on which the dismissal or other disadvantageous disposition occurred. This is an exclusion period for administrative relief of rights, and once this period has elapsed, the right is automatically extinguished. The period is calculated from the date of dismissal, regardless of when the employee subjectively became aware of the dismissal or when a court judgment became final and conclusive. A fixed-term employment contract specifying the period from December 7, 2023 to March 6, 2024 was concluded between the parties, and there is no dispute as to the contract end date. Even assuming there is a dispute as to whether the notice of contract termination was received, the starting point for calculating the application period for remedy must be deemed, at the latest, to be the contract expiration date. However, the employee filed the application for remedy on October 10, 2025, after approximately one year and six months had elapsed. Accordingly, this is an inadmissible application filed after the exclusion period had lapsed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Probationary Termination (Acceptance of Resignation Recommendation)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Exercise of Probationary Termination Right (Three Instances of Poor Evaluation)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: First‑Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, lapse of exclusion period (expiration of fixed-term employment contract), refusal to renew fixed‑term contract, 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 part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Exercise of Probationary Termination Right (Three Instances of Poor Evaluation) Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to lapse of exclusion period (expiration of fixed-term employment contract) can be viewed together in the “Lapse of Exclusion Period (Expiration of Fixed-Term Employment Contract) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
