Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Interpretation of Contract Term (Inconsistency Between Job Posting and Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 490)
- Date2026/05/28 04:13
- Read 66
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “interpretation of contract term (inconsistency between job posting and employment contract).”
Adjudicating body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae33 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Disposition: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The job posting published by the employer stated that the employment contract period would run until 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee joined the company in reliance on the employment period stated in the job posting, but the actual written employment contract specified a shorter period. When the contract term stated in the written contract expired, the employment relationship was terminated, and the question arose whether this constituted an unfair dismissal. The employee argued that, based on the job posting, the contract term should be deemed to run until 30 April 2026, and that the termination therefore amounted to a dismissal. The company contended that the employment relationship ended upon expiry of the term (31 December 2025) expressly set out in the employment contract. The Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is: “Where the employment period stated in a job posting differs from the contract term in the employment contract actually signed, which should be the basis for determining the end of the employment relationship, and whether termination upon expiry of the contract term can be regarded as an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that the employment period stated in the job posting published by the employer was merely an “invitation to treat” intended to induce the conclusion of an employment contract; that the employment contract actually entered into between the parties clearly specified 31 December 2025 as the end date; and that, given the employee’s handwritten signature on the employment contract, it could be deemed that the employee had reviewed and agreed to its contents.
Accordingly, the panel found that the content of the employment contract must be determined not by the job posting but by the signed employment contract. Taking into account the established legal principle that, in the case of a fixed-term employment contract, the employment relationship automatically terminates upon expiry of the agreed term without any separate notice of dismissal absent special circumstances, the panel concluded that the termination of the employment relationship in this case was not a dismissal but an automatic retirement due to expiry of the contract term.
The panel therefore held that the termination at issue did not constitute an unfair dismissal as alleged by the employee.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important not to rely solely on the contents of the job posting when joining a company, but to carefully check the contract term and conditions set out in the employment contract you actually sign. In particular, for fixed-term employment contracts, the general rule is that the contract automatically terminates upon expiry of the term stated in the contract. If the term stated in the contract differs from that in the job posting, you should immediately request correction or raise an objection.
In addition, vague expectations that you will be able to “continue working” based on the job posting, explanations given during interviews, or internal rules are generally insufficient to establish a right to renewal or to support a claim of unfair dismissal. It is therefore necessary to check in advance whether criteria for renewal or promises of conversion to permanent employment are documented in writing.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the key to preventing disputes is to ensure that the employment period and working conditions stated in job postings are consistent with those in the employment contracts actually concluded. If, unavoidably, a contract must be concluded on terms different from those in the job posting, the differences should be clearly explained to the employee both orally and in writing, and the signing and sealing procedures should be thoroughly carried out so that it is evident from the employment contract that the employee fully understood and agreed to the terms.
Furthermore, when the contract term of a fixed-term employee expires, automatic termination is the general rule even without a separate “notice of dismissal.” However, to prevent disputes, it is highly advisable to clearly inform the employee in advance of the contract expiry date, whether the contract will be renewed, and the reasons for any refusal to renew, and to retain related documentation. This will significantly help reduce future unfair dismissal disputes.
This decision is a useful example of how the Labor Relations Commission draws the line between unfair dismissal and termination upon expiry of a contract term, by applying “the actual contents of the employment contract, not the job posting” and “the general legal principles governing the termination of fixed-term employment contracts.” It is advisable for both employees and employers to seek expert assistance from professionals such as Labor Law Firm Law& to clearly structure contract terms and renewal mechanisms from the outset.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Although the job posting published by the employer stated that the employment contract period would run from 20 October 2025 to 30 April 2026, this was merely an invitation to treat. The employment contract actually concluded between the parties specified 31 December 2025 as the end date of employment, and the employee signed the employment contract. In light of these facts, it can be deemed that the employee agreed to the employment period stated in the employment contract, and it is therefore reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship in this case as arising from expiry of the contract term.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Although the job posting published by the employer stated that the employment contract period would run from 20 October 2025 to 30 April 2026, this was merely an invitation to treat. The employment contract actually concluded between the parties specified 31 December 2025 as the end date of employment, and the employee signed the employment contract. In light of these facts, it can be deemed that the employee agreed to the employment period stated in the employment contract, and it is therefore reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship in this case as arising from expiry of the contract term. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Submission of Resignation (Extension of Probation)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Expectation of Renewal (Personnel Evaluation Score of 59)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, interpretation of contract term (inconsistency between job posting and 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expectation of Renewal (Personnel Evaluation Score of 59)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to interpretation of contract term (inconsistency between job posting and employment contract) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Interpretation of Contract Term (Inconsistency Between Job Posting and Employment Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “interpretation of contract term (inconsistency between job posting and employment contract).”
Adjudicating body: Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae33 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.19 · Disposition: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The job posting published by the employer stated that the employment contract period would run until 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee joined the company in reliance on the employment period stated in the job posting, but the actual written employment contract specified a shorter period. When the contract term stated in the written contract expired, the employment relationship was terminated, and the question arose whether this constituted an unfair dismissal. The employee argued that, based on the job posting, the contract term should be deemed to run until 30 April 2026, and that the termination therefore amounted to a dismissal. The company contended that the employment relationship ended upon expiry of the term (31 December 2025) expressly set out in the employment contract. The Chungbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the employee’s application for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is: “Where the employment period stated in a job posting differs from the contract term in the employment contract actually signed, which should be the basis for determining the end of the employment relationship, and whether termination upon expiry of the contract term can be regarded as an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel held that the employment period stated in the job posting published by the employer was merely an “invitation to treat” intended to induce the conclusion of an employment contract; that the employment contract actually entered into between the parties clearly specified 31 December 2025 as the end date; and that, given the employee’s handwritten signature on the employment contract, it could be deemed that the employee had reviewed and agreed to its contents.
Accordingly, the panel found that the content of the employment contract must be determined not by the job posting but by the signed employment contract. Taking into account the established legal principle that, in the case of a fixed-term employment contract, the employment relationship automatically terminates upon expiry of the agreed term without any separate notice of dismissal absent special circumstances, the panel concluded that the termination of the employment relationship in this case was not a dismissal but an automatic retirement due to expiry of the contract term.
The panel therefore held that the termination at issue did not constitute an unfair dismissal as alleged by the employee.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is important not to rely solely on the contents of the job posting when joining a company, but to carefully check the contract term and conditions set out in the employment contract you actually sign. In particular, for fixed-term employment contracts, the general rule is that the contract automatically terminates upon expiry of the term stated in the contract. If the term stated in the contract differs from that in the job posting, you should immediately request correction or raise an objection.
In addition, vague expectations that you will be able to “continue working” based on the job posting, explanations given during interviews, or internal rules are generally insufficient to establish a right to renewal or to support a claim of unfair dismissal. It is therefore necessary to check in advance whether criteria for renewal or promises of conversion to permanent employment are documented in writing.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, the key to preventing disputes is to ensure that the employment period and working conditions stated in job postings are consistent with those in the employment contracts actually concluded. If, unavoidably, a contract must be concluded on terms different from those in the job posting, the differences should be clearly explained to the employee both orally and in writing, and the signing and sealing procedures should be thoroughly carried out so that it is evident from the employment contract that the employee fully understood and agreed to the terms.
Furthermore, when the contract term of a fixed-term employee expires, automatic termination is the general rule even without a separate “notice of dismissal.” However, to prevent disputes, it is highly advisable to clearly inform the employee in advance of the contract expiry date, whether the contract will be renewed, and the reasons for any refusal to renew, and to retain related documentation. This will significantly help reduce future unfair dismissal disputes.
This decision is a useful example of how the Labor Relations Commission draws the line between unfair dismissal and termination upon expiry of a contract term, by applying “the actual contents of the employment contract, not the job posting” and “the general legal principles governing the termination of fixed-term employment contracts.” It is advisable for both employees and employers to seek expert assistance from professionals such as Labor Law Firm Law& to clearly structure contract terms and renewal mechanisms from the outset.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Although the job posting published by the employer stated that the employment contract period would run from 20 October 2025 to 30 April 2026, this was merely an invitation to treat. The employment contract actually concluded between the parties specified 31 December 2025 as the end date of employment, and the employee signed the employment contract. In light of these facts, it can be deemed that the employee agreed to the employment period stated in the employment contract, and it is therefore reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship in this case as arising from expiry of the contract term.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Although the job posting published by the employer stated that the employment contract period would run from 20 October 2025 to 30 April 2026, this was merely an invitation to treat. The employment contract actually concluded between the parties specified 31 December 2025 as the end date of employment, and the employee signed the employment contract. In light of these facts, it can be deemed that the employee agreed to the employment period stated in the employment contract, and it is therefore reasonable to view the termination of the employment relationship in this case as arising from expiry of the contract term. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Submission of Resignation (Extension of Probation)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Expectation of Renewal (Personnel Evaluation Score of 59)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, interpretation of contract term (inconsistency between job posting and 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expectation of Renewal (Personnel Evaluation Score of 59)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to interpretation of contract term (inconsistency between job posting and employment contract) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Interpretation of Contract Term (Inconsistency Between Job Posting and Employment Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
