Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Continuous Service (Interruption During Off‑Season)” (Unfair Dismissal 430)
- Date2026/05/05 04:13
- Read 125
This case on the issue of “continuous service (interruption during off‑season)” is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed).
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “continuous service (interruption during off‑season).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae130 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.31 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employer had hired fixed‑term workers only outside the off‑season because production of deodorizing microorganisms supplied to livestock farms decreased during the off‑season. It was recognized that, for each round of hiring, the employer conducted objective, publicly announced recruitment and interviews as a substantive open recruitment procedure, and there were no circumstances indicating that this procedure was a mere formality premised on succession of employment for existing workers. Accordingly, the approximately 1–2 month interruption between contracts could not simply be regarded as an administratively convenient or purely formal break for the next contract, and …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose at a company that supplies deodorizing microorganisms to livestock farms. Because production volume decreases during the off‑season, the company repeatedly hired fixed‑term workers. One worker claimed that, in substance, he had continuously worked for more than two years and therefore had been converted into a worker with an indefinite term of employment, and that termination of the employment relationship on the ground of contract expiration constituted unfair dismissal. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the employer’s hiring practices, the substantive nature of the gaps between contracts, and whether work was actually performed during those gaps, and, based on the parties’ arguments and evidence, dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a fixed‑term worker whose employment contracts were interrupted by 1–2 month gaps during the off‑season can be deemed to have “worked continuously for more than two years” under Article 4(2) of the Act on the Protection, Etc. of Fixed‑Term and Part‑Time Employees (the “Fixed‑Term Act”) and thereby converted into a worker with an indefinite term of employment, and, consequently, whether notification of contract expiration constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel found that the employer had hired fixed‑term workers only outside the off‑season because production of microorganisms decreased during that period, and that for each round of hiring the employer had conducted substantive open recruitment procedures, including publicly announced job postings and interviews. It also found no circumstances indicating that these procedures were merely formalities premised on the succession of employment for existing workers.
Accordingly, it held that the approximately 1–2 month interruption between contracts could not be viewed as a simple matter of administrative convenience or a purely formal break for the purpose of the next contract.
The worker argued that he had performed work during the gaps by phone or by coming to the workplace. However, there was insufficient specific and objective evidence to support this claim. In addition, it was difficult to find that normal work had been performed in the absence of valid work instructions from the employer or any job authority on the part of the worker. Even if some work had been performed, in light of the content and frequency of such work, it was difficult to conclude that it constituted substantive work sufficient to evaluate the interrupted employment relationship as continuous service.
In conclusion, the panel found it difficult to determine that the worker had “continuously worked for more than two years.” Therefore, it could not be deemed that the worker had been converted into a worker with an indefinite term of employment under Article 4(2) of the Fixed‑Term Act. The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be an automatic termination due to expiration of the contract term on the contract end date of 9 December 2025, and did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
For a worker to apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal, it is not sufficient merely to show that “there were multiple contracts.” The worker must secure objective evidence that substantive work continued during the gaps between contracts and that work was performed under the employer’s direction and supervision (such as work logs, records of attendance, messenger or email instructions, and wage payment records). In industries with seasonal fluctuations, such as off‑season and peak season, where fixed‑term employment is repeated, the key issue in asserting conversion to an indefinite‑term contract under Article 4(2) of the Fixed‑Term Act is whether the gap is a “formal break” or a “substantive interruption.” It is therefore important to organize, in concrete terms, evidence that can prove the substantive nature of the period of interruption.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in industries with significant fluctuations in workload, such as off‑season and peak season, when utilizing fixed‑term workers, it is necessary to document, for each round of hiring, public and objective recruitment procedures such as job postings and interviews so that it is clearly shown that each hiring is a “new hire.” In addition, employers should manage their workforce so that no actual work is performed between contract periods, and should refine their HR and labor management systems to ensure that no work instructions, attendance requirements, or wage payments arise during the gaps. Doing so will reduce the risk that future proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will escalate into disputes over de facto continuous service or collective/unfair dismissal.
In this type of case, both workers and employers should accurately understand the “two‑year continuous service” requirement under Article 4 of the Fixed‑Term Act and the criteria applied by the Labor Relations Commission in assessing continuous service. It should be borne in mind that preventing disputes is greatly aided by structuring contracts and organizing evidence in advance through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer had hired fixed‑term workers only outside the off‑season because production of deodorizing microorganisms supplied to livestock farms decreased during the off‑season. It was recognized that, for each hiring, the employer conducted substantive open recruitment procedures, including objective job postings and interviews, and there were no circumstances indicating that these recruitment procedures were merely formalities premised on the succession of employment for existing workers. Accordingly, the approximately 1–2 month interruption between contracts could not simply be regarded as an administratively convenient or purely formal break for the purpose of the next contract. The worker argued that he had performed work during the gaps by phone or by coming to the workplace, but he failed to present sufficient specific and objective evidence to prove this. Moreover, it was difficult to find that normal work could have been performed in the absence of valid work instructions from the employer or any job authority on the part of the worker. Even if some work had been performed, in light of the content and frequency of such work, it was difficult to conclude that it constituted substantive work sufficient to evaluate the interrupted employment relationship as continuous service. Taking all of these circumstances into comprehensive consideration, it was difficult to determine that the worker had continuously worked for more than two years, and therefore he could not be deemed to have been converted into a worker with an indefinite term of employment under Article 4(2) of the Fixed‑Term Act. The employment relationship was therefore found to have automatically terminated due to expiration of the contract term on the contract end date of 9 December 2025.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employer had hired fixed‑term workers only outside the off‑season because production of deodorizing microorganisms supplied to livestock farms decreased during the off‑season. It was recognized that, for each hiring, the employer conducted substantive open recruitment procedures, including objective job postings and interviews, and there were no circumstances indicating that these recruitment procedures were merely formalities premised on the succession of employment for existing workers. Accordingly, the approximately 1–2 month interruption between contracts could not simply be regarded as an administratively convenient or purely formal break for the purpose of the next contract. The worker argued that he had performed work during the gaps by phone or by coming to the workplace, but he failed to present sufficient specific and objective evidence to prove this. Moreover, it was difficult to find that normal work could have been performed in the absence of valid work instructions from the employer or any job authority on the part of the worker. Even if some work had been performed, in light of the content and frequency of such work, it was difficult to conclude that it constituted substantive work sufficient to evaluate the interrupted employment relationship as continuous service. Taking all of these circumstances into comprehensive consideration, it was difficult to determine that the worker had continuously worked for more than two years, and therefore he could not be deemed to have been converted into a worker with an indefinite term of employment under Article 4(2) of the Fixed‑Term Act. The employment relationship was therefore found to have automatically terminated due to expiration of the contract term on the contract end date of 9 December 2025. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Contract Expiration)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Change of Service Provider)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, continuous service (interruption during off‑season), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Contract Expiration)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to continuous service (interruption during off‑season) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Continuous Service (Interruption During Off‑Season).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “continuous service (interruption during off‑season).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026Buhae130 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.31 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employer had hired fixed‑term workers only outside the off‑season because production of deodorizing microorganisms supplied to livestock farms decreased during the off‑season. It was recognized that, for each round of hiring, the employer conducted objective, publicly announced recruitment and interviews as a substantive open recruitment procedure, and there were no circumstances indicating that this procedure was a mere formality premised on succession of employment for existing workers. Accordingly, the approximately 1–2 month interruption between contracts could not simply be regarded as an administratively convenient or purely formal break for the next contract, and …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case arose at a company that supplies deodorizing microorganisms to livestock farms. Because production volume decreases during the off‑season, the company repeatedly hired fixed‑term workers. One worker claimed that, in substance, he had continuously worked for more than two years and therefore had been converted into a worker with an indefinite term of employment, and that termination of the employment relationship on the ground of contract expiration constituted unfair dismissal. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the employer’s hiring practices, the substantive nature of the gaps between contracts, and whether work was actually performed during those gaps, and, based on the parties’ arguments and evidence, dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a fixed‑term worker whose employment contracts were interrupted by 1–2 month gaps during the off‑season can be deemed to have “worked continuously for more than two years” under Article 4(2) of the Act on the Protection, Etc. of Fixed‑Term and Part‑Time Employees (the “Fixed‑Term Act”) and thereby converted into a worker with an indefinite term of employment, and, consequently, whether notification of contract expiration constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel found that the employer had hired fixed‑term workers only outside the off‑season because production of microorganisms decreased during that period, and that for each round of hiring the employer had conducted substantive open recruitment procedures, including publicly announced job postings and interviews. It also found no circumstances indicating that these procedures were merely formalities premised on the succession of employment for existing workers.
Accordingly, it held that the approximately 1–2 month interruption between contracts could not be viewed as a simple matter of administrative convenience or a purely formal break for the purpose of the next contract.
The worker argued that he had performed work during the gaps by phone or by coming to the workplace. However, there was insufficient specific and objective evidence to support this claim. In addition, it was difficult to find that normal work had been performed in the absence of valid work instructions from the employer or any job authority on the part of the worker. Even if some work had been performed, in light of the content and frequency of such work, it was difficult to conclude that it constituted substantive work sufficient to evaluate the interrupted employment relationship as continuous service.
In conclusion, the panel found it difficult to determine that the worker had “continuously worked for more than two years.” Therefore, it could not be deemed that the worker had been converted into a worker with an indefinite term of employment under Article 4(2) of the Fixed‑Term Act. The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be an automatic termination due to expiration of the contract term on the contract end date of 9 December 2025, and did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
For a worker to apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy on the ground of unfair dismissal, it is not sufficient merely to show that “there were multiple contracts.” The worker must secure objective evidence that substantive work continued during the gaps between contracts and that work was performed under the employer’s direction and supervision (such as work logs, records of attendance, messenger or email instructions, and wage payment records). In industries with seasonal fluctuations, such as off‑season and peak season, where fixed‑term employment is repeated, the key issue in asserting conversion to an indefinite‑term contract under Article 4(2) of the Fixed‑Term Act is whether the gap is a “formal break” or a “substantive interruption.” It is therefore important to organize, in concrete terms, evidence that can prove the substantive nature of the period of interruption.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, in industries with significant fluctuations in workload, such as off‑season and peak season, when utilizing fixed‑term workers, it is necessary to document, for each round of hiring, public and objective recruitment procedures such as job postings and interviews so that it is clearly shown that each hiring is a “new hire.” In addition, employers should manage their workforce so that no actual work is performed between contract periods, and should refine their HR and labor management systems to ensure that no work instructions, attendance requirements, or wage payments arise during the gaps. Doing so will reduce the risk that future proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will escalate into disputes over de facto continuous service or collective/unfair dismissal.
In this type of case, both workers and employers should accurately understand the “two‑year continuous service” requirement under Article 4 of the Fixed‑Term Act and the criteria applied by the Labor Relations Commission in assessing continuous service. It should be borne in mind that preventing disputes is greatly aided by structuring contracts and organizing evidence in advance through consultation with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employer had hired fixed‑term workers only outside the off‑season because production of deodorizing microorganisms supplied to livestock farms decreased during the off‑season. It was recognized that, for each hiring, the employer conducted substantive open recruitment procedures, including objective job postings and interviews, and there were no circumstances indicating that these recruitment procedures were merely formalities premised on the succession of employment for existing workers. Accordingly, the approximately 1–2 month interruption between contracts could not simply be regarded as an administratively convenient or purely formal break for the purpose of the next contract. The worker argued that he had performed work during the gaps by phone or by coming to the workplace, but he failed to present sufficient specific and objective evidence to prove this. Moreover, it was difficult to find that normal work could have been performed in the absence of valid work instructions from the employer or any job authority on the part of the worker. Even if some work had been performed, in light of the content and frequency of such work, it was difficult to conclude that it constituted substantive work sufficient to evaluate the interrupted employment relationship as continuous service. Taking all of these circumstances into comprehensive consideration, it was difficult to determine that the worker had continuously worked for more than two years, and therefore he could not be deemed to have been converted into a worker with an indefinite term of employment under Article 4(2) of the Fixed‑Term Act. The employment relationship was therefore found to have automatically terminated due to expiration of the contract term on the contract end date of 9 December 2025.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employer had hired fixed‑term workers only outside the off‑season because production of deodorizing microorganisms supplied to livestock farms decreased during the off‑season. It was recognized that, for each hiring, the employer conducted substantive open recruitment procedures, including objective job postings and interviews, and there were no circumstances indicating that these recruitment procedures were merely formalities premised on the succession of employment for existing workers. Accordingly, the approximately 1–2 month interruption between contracts could not simply be regarded as an administratively convenient or purely formal break for the purpose of the next contract. The worker argued that he had performed work during the gaps by phone or by coming to the workplace, but he failed to present sufficient specific and objective evidence to prove this. Moreover, it was difficult to find that normal work could have been performed in the absence of valid work instructions from the employer or any job authority on the part of the worker. Even if some work had been performed, in light of the content and frequency of such work, it was difficult to conclude that it constituted substantive work sufficient to evaluate the interrupted employment relationship as continuous service. Taking all of these circumstances into comprehensive consideration, it was difficult to determine that the worker had continuously worked for more than two years, and therefore he could not be deemed to have been converted into a worker with an indefinite term of employment under Article 4(2) of the Fixed‑Term Act. The employment relationship was therefore found to have automatically terminated due to expiration of the contract term on the contract end date of 9 December 2025. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Contract Expiration)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Change of Service Provider)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, continuous service (interruption during off‑season), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Contract Expiration)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to continuous service (interruption during off‑season) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Continuous Service (Interruption During Off‑Season).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
