Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Existence of Dismissal (Security Team Leader – Lost Cash)” (Unfair Dismissal 357)
- Date2026/04/08 04:09
- Read 185
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (security team leader – lost cash).”
Decision Committee: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9231 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.20 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employee in this case worked until the expiry date of the fixed-term employment contract and the employment relationship then ended, and it is difficult to identify any other circumstances that would indicate the existence of a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a fixed-term employee who worked as a security team leader expected continued employment after the expiry of the employment contract. When the contract was not renewed, the employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing not only on whether the dismissal was unfair, but also on the existence of a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract and the reasonableness of the grounds for refusing renewal.
The key issue in this case is “whether an unfair dismissal exists where the employee left the company due to the expiry of the fixed-term employment contract, and further, whether a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract can be recognized.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are, first, whether a dismissal can be deemed to exist in substance, even where the employment relationship has formally ended due to the expiry of the fixed term, based on the employer’s unilateral intent. Second, whether a fixed-term employee who has never had a contract renewed and whose rules of employment and employment contract contain no provisions on renewal can nonetheless be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal based on practice or a relationship of trust. Third, even if such an expectation of renewal is recognized, whether the act of keeping and using lost cash without reporting it or obtaining approval constitutes a reasonable ground for refusing renewal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that the employee worked until the expiry date specified in the employment contract, that there was no separate notice of dismissal or other action by which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract, and that, under the general legal principle, a fixed-term employment contract in principle terminates automatically upon expiry of its term.
In light of the above, the panel found it difficult to conclude that a dismissal by the employer existed in this case.
The panel also considered that the employee had never had the employment contract renewed since joining the company, that there were no provisions in the rules of employment or the employment contract to the effect that “the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions” despite the expiry of the contract term, and that there was no confirmed practice of repeated renewals or personnel management premised on long-term employment.
Accordingly, the panel found it difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would naturally be renewed.
In addition, the panel held that even assuming, in line with Supreme Court precedent (which requires a comprehensive consideration of contract terms, circumstances of conclusion, renewal practices, etc.), that a legitimate expectation of renewal could be recognized to some extent, the employee’s act of personally keeping and using lost cash found at the company without reporting it to, or obtaining approval from, the employer constituted, in light of the nature and position of a security team leader,
a reasonable ground for the employer to refuse renewal of the employment contract. The panel therefore determined that no dismissal existed in this case and that the refusal to renew was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For fixed-term employees, the contract in principle terminates automatically upon expiry. Therefore, to challenge unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, it is necessary to specifically prove that there was in fact a “unilateral expression of intent to dismiss” by the employer. To assert a legitimate expectation of renewal, objective materials are required, such as a practice of repeated renewals, rules of employment or personnel systems premised on long-term employment, and examples of renewals for comparable employees. Mere personal expectation is insufficient.
In particular, in positions where trust is critical—such as security, accounting, and management—even seemingly minor violations related to the handling of lost property or the management of money and goods may be assessed as “undermining trust” and may constitute reasonable grounds for refusing contract renewal. It is therefore essential to strictly comply with relevant rules and established practices.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly specify the contract period and end date in contracts with fixed-term employees, and to clearly explain in advance the company’s policy on whether and on what basis contracts may be renewed, in order to reduce future disputes over whether a separation constitutes “dismissal” or “expiry of term.” In light of the Supreme Court’s doctrine on legitimate expectation of renewal, employers should review their staffing structures where there is a risk that such an expectation may be recognized—for example, where fixed-term contracts are repeatedly renewed or where fixed-term employees are used over a long period for work that is in substance regular and continuous.
In addition, for positions where reliability is critical, such as security team leaders, employers should establish detailed internal rules on the handling of lost property and the management of cash and assets, and clearly state through training and written notices that violations may constitute grounds for refusal to renew or for disciplinary action. Doing so will make it easier to have the reasonableness of a refusal to renew recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
This decision of the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission reconfirms that, in disputes over unfair dismissal, the “existence of a dismissal” must first be proven, and it reiterates the requirements for recognizing a legitimate expectation of renewal for fixed-term employees and the criteria for assessing the reasonableness of grounds for refusing renewal. To prepare for disputes before the Labor Relations Commission, it is advisable to review contract structures and personnel management in advance together with experts who have extensive experience in fixed-term, redundancy, and unfair dismissal cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employee in this case worked until the expiry date of the employment contract and the employment relationship then ended, and it is difficult to identify any other circumstances that would indicate the existence of a dismissal. Therefore, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues that presuppose the existence of a dismissal.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract exists
The employee in this case has never had the employment contract renewed since joining the company, and there are no provisions in the rules of employment or elsewhere to the effect that, notwithstanding the expiry of the contract term, the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions. It is therefore difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed. Even if a legitimate expectation of renewal were to be recognized, the fact that the employee personally kept and used lost cash found at the company without reporting it to, or obtaining approval from, the employer constitutes, in light of the employee’s position as security team leader, a reasonable ground for refusing renewal of the employment contract.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employee in this case worked until the expiry date of the employment contract and the employment relationship then ended, and it is difficult to identify any other circumstances that would indicate the existence of a dismissal. Therefore, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues that presuppose the existence of a dismissal.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract exists
The employee in this case has never had the employment contract renewed since joining the company, and there are no provisions in the rules of employment or elsewhere to the effect that, notwithstanding the expiry of the contract term, the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions. It is therefore difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed. Even if a legitimate expectation of renewal were to be recognized, the fact that the employee personally kept and used lost cash found at the company without reporting it to, or obtaining approval from, the employer constitutes, in light of the employee’s position as security team leader, a reasonable ground for refusing renewal of the employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Daily Workers Paid by the Day)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (security team leader – lost cash), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Daily Workers Paid by the Day)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “existence of dismissal (security team leader – lost cash)” can be viewed together on the “Existence of Dismissal (Security Team Leader – Lost Cash) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (security team leader – lost cash).”
Decision Committee: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9231 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.20 · Case Result: Dismissed
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employee in this case worked until the expiry date of the fixed-term employment contract and the employment relationship then ended, and it is difficult to identify any other circumstances that would indicate the existence of a dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a fixed-term employee who worked as a security team leader expected continued employment after the expiry of the employment contract. When the contract was not renewed, the employee claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission conducted hearings focusing not only on whether the dismissal was unfair, but also on the existence of a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract and the reasonableness of the grounds for refusing renewal.
The key issue in this case is “whether an unfair dismissal exists where the employee left the company due to the expiry of the fixed-term employment contract, and further, whether a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract can be recognized.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are, first, whether a dismissal can be deemed to exist in substance, even where the employment relationship has formally ended due to the expiry of the fixed term, based on the employer’s unilateral intent. Second, whether a fixed-term employee who has never had a contract renewed and whose rules of employment and employment contract contain no provisions on renewal can nonetheless be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal based on practice or a relationship of trust. Third, even if such an expectation of renewal is recognized, whether the act of keeping and using lost cash without reporting it or obtaining approval constitutes a reasonable ground for refusing renewal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The decision panel in this case noted that the employee worked until the expiry date specified in the employment contract, that there was no separate notice of dismissal or other action by which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract, and that, under the general legal principle, a fixed-term employment contract in principle terminates automatically upon expiry of its term.
In light of the above, the panel found it difficult to conclude that a dismissal by the employer existed in this case.
The panel also considered that the employee had never had the employment contract renewed since joining the company, that there were no provisions in the rules of employment or the employment contract to the effect that “the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions” despite the expiry of the contract term, and that there was no confirmed practice of repeated renewals or personnel management premised on long-term employment.
Accordingly, the panel found it difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would naturally be renewed.
In addition, the panel held that even assuming, in line with Supreme Court precedent (which requires a comprehensive consideration of contract terms, circumstances of conclusion, renewal practices, etc.), that a legitimate expectation of renewal could be recognized to some extent, the employee’s act of personally keeping and using lost cash found at the company without reporting it to, or obtaining approval from, the employer constituted, in light of the nature and position of a security team leader,
a reasonable ground for the employer to refuse renewal of the employment contract. The panel therefore determined that no dismissal existed in this case and that the refusal to renew was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For fixed-term employees, the contract in principle terminates automatically upon expiry. Therefore, to challenge unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, it is necessary to specifically prove that there was in fact a “unilateral expression of intent to dismiss” by the employer. To assert a legitimate expectation of renewal, objective materials are required, such as a practice of repeated renewals, rules of employment or personnel systems premised on long-term employment, and examples of renewals for comparable employees. Mere personal expectation is insufficient.
In particular, in positions where trust is critical—such as security, accounting, and management—even seemingly minor violations related to the handling of lost property or the management of money and goods may be assessed as “undermining trust” and may constitute reasonable grounds for refusing contract renewal. It is therefore essential to strictly comply with relevant rules and established practices.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly specify the contract period and end date in contracts with fixed-term employees, and to clearly explain in advance the company’s policy on whether and on what basis contracts may be renewed, in order to reduce future disputes over whether a separation constitutes “dismissal” or “expiry of term.” In light of the Supreme Court’s doctrine on legitimate expectation of renewal, employers should review their staffing structures where there is a risk that such an expectation may be recognized—for example, where fixed-term contracts are repeatedly renewed or where fixed-term employees are used over a long period for work that is in substance regular and continuous.
In addition, for positions where reliability is critical, such as security team leaders, employers should establish detailed internal rules on the handling of lost property and the management of cash and assets, and clearly state through training and written notices that violations may constitute grounds for refusal to renew or for disciplinary action. Doing so will make it easier to have the reasonableness of a refusal to renew recognized by the Labor Relations Commission.
This decision of the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission reconfirms that, in disputes over unfair dismissal, the “existence of a dismissal” must first be proven, and it reiterates the requirements for recognizing a legitimate expectation of renewal for fixed-term employees and the criteria for assessing the reasonableness of grounds for refusing renewal. To prepare for disputes before the Labor Relations Commission, it is advisable to review contract structures and personnel management in advance together with experts who have extensive experience in fixed-term, redundancy, and unfair dismissal cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employee in this case worked until the expiry date of the employment contract and the employment relationship then ended, and it is difficult to identify any other circumstances that would indicate the existence of a dismissal. Therefore, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues that presuppose the existence of a dismissal.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract exists
The employee in this case has never had the employment contract renewed since joining the company, and there are no provisions in the rules of employment or elsewhere to the effect that, notwithstanding the expiry of the contract term, the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions. It is therefore difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed. Even if a legitimate expectation of renewal were to be recognized, the fact that the employee personally kept and used lost cash found at the company without reporting it to, or obtaining approval from, the employer constitutes, in light of the employee’s position as security team leader, a reasonable ground for refusing renewal of the employment contract.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The employee in this case worked until the expiry date of the employment contract and the employment relationship then ended, and it is difficult to identify any other circumstances that would indicate the existence of a dismissal. Therefore, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues that presuppose the existence of a dismissal.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract exists
The employee in this case has never had the employment contract renewed since joining the company, and there are no provisions in the rules of employment or elsewhere to the effect that, notwithstanding the expiry of the contract term, the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions. It is therefore difficult to recognize that the employee had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed. Even if a legitimate expectation of renewal were to be recognized, the fact that the employee personally kept and used lost cash found at the company without reporting it to, or obtaining approval from, the employer constitutes, in light of the employee’s position as security team leader, a reasonable ground for refusing renewal of the employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Daily Workers Paid by the Day)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First-Instance Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (security team leader – lost cash), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Extinction of Interest in Relief (Daily Workers Paid by the Day)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “existence of dismissal (security team leader – lost cash)” can be viewed together on the “Existence of Dismissal (Security Team Leader – Lost Cash) Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
