Corporate trends / Performance record
Case Precedent on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Existence of Dismissal (Notice of Refusal to Extend Contract)” (Unfair Dismissal 328)
- Date2026/03/29 04:13
- Read 190
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “existence of dismissal (notice of refusal to extend contract).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 12 ○○○
2026.03.05 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of dismissal
Where an employment contract between an employer and an employee specifies only the commencement date of employment and no end date, the employee does not fall under the category of a fixed-term employee. In such circumstances, the employer’s notice to the employee, against the employee’s will, that the employment contract cannot be extended constitutes a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employment contract executed between the employer and the employee stated only the commencement date of the employment relationship and did not specify any end date. The employer then notified the employee that the contract could not be extended and terminated the employment relationship, giving rise to a dispute over whether this constituted an unfair dismissal. The employee filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, in a case represented by Labor Law Firm Law&, rendered a decision recognizing the dismissal as unfair.
The key issue in this case was whether the employer’s unilateral notice of non‑extension of the contract to an employee whose employment contract had no specified end date constituted a dismissal, and whether such dismissal is valid where the employer failed to comply with the written notice procedure for dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case were, first, whether the employer’s notice of “non‑extension of the contract,” despite the absence of any fixed term in the employment contract, constituted a unilateral termination of the employment relationship against the employee’s will, i.e., a dismissal. Second, where the employer asserted that the termination of the employment relationship was a “mutual resignation,” but did not provide any written notice stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, whether such a procedurally defective measure would be evaluated by the Labor Relations Commission as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case found that: the employment contract between the employer and the employee specified only the commencement date of employment and did not specify any end date, and therefore the employee did not fall under the category of a fixed‑term employee; notwithstanding this, the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship by notifying the employee, against the employee’s will, that the “employment contract could not be extended”; and although the employer claimed that the termination of the employment relationship was a mutual resignation, the employer neither prepared nor delivered a written notice of dismissal stating the reasons and timing of dismissal, thereby completely failing to fulfill the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the Commission held that this dismissal was tainted by a serious defect in satisfying the procedural requirements for dismissal and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal. It further held that there was no need to examine whether the existence and degree of the grounds for dismissal were socially acceptable and justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If your employment contract does not specify an end date, you should be aware that, even if the employer later uses terms such as “expiration of contract period” or “non‑extension,” the measure may in substance constitute a dismissal. In addition, if the employer has not provided you with a written document specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, you may file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission on the basis of a procedural defect in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. It is therefore important to carefully secure evidence such as text messages, emails, and recordings from the time of the notification.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, whether an employee is employed on a fixed‑term or an indefinite‑term contract is often the starting point of a dispute. Employers should therefore clearly specify the contract period (start date and end date) in the employment contract and manage matters so that there is no confusion between expiration of a fixed term and dismissal. Where the employer intends to terminate the employment relationship based on the employer’s decision, even if the form used is that of a “mutual resignation,” the employer must be able to prove that the employee’s voluntary intent actually existed. If there is any possibility that the measure may be regarded as a dismissal, the employer must strictly comply with the requirements of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, including providing in advance a written notice specifically stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of dismissal
Where an employment contract between an employer and an employee specifies only the commencement date of employment and does not specify any end date, the employee does not fall under the category of a fixed‑term employee. Nevertheless, notifying the employee, against the employee’s will, that the employment contract cannot be extended constitutes a dismissal.
B. Justifiability of dismissal
The employer asserted that the termination of the employment relationship with the employee was a resignation by mutual agreement and therefore did not recognize the obligation of written notice as a procedural requirement for dismissal. In fact, no written notice of dismissal stating the reasons and timing of dismissal existed. Accordingly, the dismissal was found to be an unfair dismissal due to procedural defects in the dismissal. Therefore, there was no need to examine the justifiability of the grounds for dismissal or the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary action.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of dismissal
Where an employment contract between an employer and an employee specifies only the commencement date of employment and does not specify any end date, the employee does not fall under the category of a fixed‑term employee. Nevertheless, notifying the employee, against the employee’s will, that the employment contract cannot be extended constitutes a dismissal.
B. Justifiability of dismissal
The employer asserted that the termination of the employment relationship with the employee was a resignation by mutual agreement and therefore did not recognize the obligation of written notice as a procedural requirement for dismissal. In fact, no written notice of dismissal stating the reasons and timing of dismissal existed. Accordingly, the dismissal was found to be an unfair dismissal due to procedural defects in the dismissal. Therefore, there was no need to examine the justifiability of the grounds for dismissal or the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary action. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Expiration of Contract Period (3‑Month Fixed‑Term Contract)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Expectation of Renewal (Convenience Store Contract Expiration)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (notice of refusal to extend contract), others, 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 Precedents” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Expiration of Contract Period (3‑Month Fixed‑Term Contract)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to existence of dismissal (notice of refusal to extend contract) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Relating to Existence of Dismissal (Notice of Refusal to Extend Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “existence of dismissal (notice of refusal to extend contract).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 12 ○○○
2026.03.05 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Existence of dismissal
Where an employment contract between an employer and an employee specifies only the commencement date of employment and no end date, the employee does not fall under the category of a fixed-term employee. In such circumstances, the employer’s notice to the employee, against the employee’s will, that the employment contract cannot be extended constitutes a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employment contract executed between the employer and the employee stated only the commencement date of the employment relationship and did not specify any end date. The employer then notified the employee that the contract could not be extended and terminated the employment relationship, giving rise to a dispute over whether this constituted an unfair dismissal. The employee filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, and the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, in a case represented by Labor Law Firm Law&, rendered a decision recognizing the dismissal as unfair.
The key issue in this case was whether the employer’s unilateral notice of non‑extension of the contract to an employee whose employment contract had no specified end date constituted a dismissal, and whether such dismissal is valid where the employer failed to comply with the written notice procedure for dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case were, first, whether the employer’s notice of “non‑extension of the contract,” despite the absence of any fixed term in the employment contract, constituted a unilateral termination of the employment relationship against the employee’s will, i.e., a dismissal. Second, where the employer asserted that the termination of the employment relationship was a “mutual resignation,” but did not provide any written notice stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, whether such a procedurally defective measure would be evaluated by the Labor Relations Commission as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel in this case found that: the employment contract between the employer and the employee specified only the commencement date of employment and did not specify any end date, and therefore the employee did not fall under the category of a fixed‑term employee; notwithstanding this, the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship by notifying the employee, against the employee’s will, that the “employment contract could not be extended”; and although the employer claimed that the termination of the employment relationship was a mutual resignation, the employer neither prepared nor delivered a written notice of dismissal stating the reasons and timing of dismissal, thereby completely failing to fulfill the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the Commission held that this dismissal was tainted by a serious defect in satisfying the procedural requirements for dismissal and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal. It further held that there was no need to examine whether the existence and degree of the grounds for dismissal were socially acceptable and justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If your employment contract does not specify an end date, you should be aware that, even if the employer later uses terms such as “expiration of contract period” or “non‑extension,” the measure may in substance constitute a dismissal. In addition, if the employer has not provided you with a written document specifying the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, you may file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission on the basis of a procedural defect in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. It is therefore important to carefully secure evidence such as text messages, emails, and recordings from the time of the notification.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, whether an employee is employed on a fixed‑term or an indefinite‑term contract is often the starting point of a dispute. Employers should therefore clearly specify the contract period (start date and end date) in the employment contract and manage matters so that there is no confusion between expiration of a fixed term and dismissal. Where the employer intends to terminate the employment relationship based on the employer’s decision, even if the form used is that of a “mutual resignation,” the employer must be able to prove that the employee’s voluntary intent actually existed. If there is any possibility that the measure may be regarded as a dismissal, the employer must strictly comply with the requirements of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, including providing in advance a written notice specifically stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of dismissal
Where an employment contract between an employer and an employee specifies only the commencement date of employment and does not specify any end date, the employee does not fall under the category of a fixed‑term employee. Nevertheless, notifying the employee, against the employee’s will, that the employment contract cannot be extended constitutes a dismissal.
B. Justifiability of dismissal
The employer asserted that the termination of the employment relationship with the employee was a resignation by mutual agreement and therefore did not recognize the obligation of written notice as a procedural requirement for dismissal. In fact, no written notice of dismissal stating the reasons and timing of dismissal existed. Accordingly, the dismissal was found to be an unfair dismissal due to procedural defects in the dismissal. Therefore, there was no need to examine the justifiability of the grounds for dismissal or the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary action.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Existence of dismissal
Where an employment contract between an employer and an employee specifies only the commencement date of employment and does not specify any end date, the employee does not fall under the category of a fixed‑term employee. Nevertheless, notifying the employee, against the employee’s will, that the employment contract cannot be extended constitutes a dismissal.
B. Justifiability of dismissal
The employer asserted that the termination of the employment relationship with the employee was a resignation by mutual agreement and therefore did not recognize the obligation of written notice as a procedural requirement for dismissal. In fact, no written notice of dismissal stating the reasons and timing of dismissal existed. Accordingly, the dismissal was found to be an unfair dismissal due to procedural defects in the dismissal. Therefore, there was no need to examine the justifiability of the grounds for dismissal or the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary action. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Expiration of Contract Period (3‑Month Fixed‑Term Contract)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Expectation of Renewal (Convenience Store Contract Expiration)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (notice of refusal to extend contract), others, 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 Precedents” series.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Relating to ‘Expiration of Contract Period (3‑Month Fixed‑Term Contract)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to existence of dismissal (notice of refusal to extend contract) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Relating to Existence of Dismissal (Notice of Refusal to Extend Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
