Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Implied Renewal (Continuous Service)” (Unfair Dismissal 56)
- Date2026/01/09 04:11
- Read 202
[Case Information]
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision concerning “implied renewal (continuous service)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Fully upheld
- Decision-making body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal759 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The parties’ assertions regarding the circumstances under which the second and third employment contracts were prepared are inconsistent, and there are no objective materials confirming the specific facts. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the worker was a regular employee or a fixed-term employee. However, even if, as the employer asserts, the worker was employed under a fixed-term employment contract…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer notified the worker not to report to work any longer on the ground that the employment contract period had expired. The worker claimed that this constituted unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy. The key factual issue was that, although the employment contract did not clearly indicate whether the worker was a regular or fixed-term employee, the worker continued to work for a long period even after the stated contract term had expired.
The worker argued that the termination should be regarded as a dismissal rather than a simple expiration of the term, and that there were also problems with the manner of notification. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission fully upheld the worker’s application and held that the employer’s dismissal was unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is: “Where work has continued after the expiry of the employment contract period without the execution of a separate contract, does the employer’s action of terminating the employment relationship on the ground of ‘expiration of the contract term’ constitute a dismissal, and if the employer fails to comply with the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, does this amount to unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that, even if it is unclear whether the worker was a regular or fixed-term employee due to conflicting assertions between the parties regarding the circumstances of the preparation of the second and third employment contracts, and even if, as the employer claims, the worker was employed under a fixed-term employment contract, the fact that the worker continued to work without any separate contract from the expiry of the contract term on 31 December 2024 until 30 September 2025 shows that the employment contract was impliedly renewed. Nevertheless, the employer’s notification as of 30 September 2025 stating only “expiration of employment contract period, etc.” constituted a unilateral termination by the employer, not a mere expiration of the term, and therefore amounted to a dismissal. Furthermore, because the employer failed to state the specific “grounds for dismissal” required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of the grounds for dismissal.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held to be unfair, as it constituted a dismissal in terms of the method of terminating the employment relationship, yet lacked just cause for dismissal and failed to comply with the proper procedure (written notice).
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, even if a contract specifies a fixed term, if the worker continues to report to work after that term and the employer continues to pay wages without objection, “implied renewal” may be recognized, and the worker may challenge the termination as a dismissal rather than a mere expiration of the term. In addition, if the employer provides only abstract expressions such as “expiration of contract term” or “personnel adjustment” in writing without specifying concrete grounds for dismissal, the worker should consider applying to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal on the basis of a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
In proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, the key point is to secure and submit as much evidence as possible to prove continuous service, such as employment contracts, actual work logs, and pay slips.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when using fixed-term employment contracts, it is important to decide in advance, at the time of contract expiry, whether to actually terminate the employment relationship or to continue employing the worker. If the employer decides to continue employment, it should either execute a renewal contract or clearly determine whether to convert the worker to regular status, thereby preventing disputes over implied renewal. In particular, the common practice of notifying workers using only broad expressions such as “expiration of employment contract period, etc.” may easily lead to a finding of unfair dismissal due to a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, when dismissing a worker, the employer should state in writing the grounds for dismissal and the timing of dismissal in sufficient detail for the worker to understand.
Even where workforce reductions are necessary in other forms, such as collective redundancies, rather than disguising the grounds for dismissal as “expiration of term,” it is advisable, as a practical human resources and labor management strategy, to establish legitimate grounds and procedures for dismissal (consultation, notification, setting criteria, etc.), with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The parties’ assertions regarding the circumstances under which the second and third employment contracts were prepared are inconsistent, and there are no objective materials confirming the specific facts. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the worker was a regular employee or a fixed-term employee. However, even if, as the employer asserts, the worker was employed under an employment contract with a fixed term, it is undisputed that the worker continued to work without entering into a separate employment contract from the contract expiry date of 31 December 2024 until 30 September 2025. Therefore, although the employment contract with the worker was impliedly renewed, the employer’s notification on 30 September 2025 of the expiration of the employment contract period constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
When dismissing the worker as of 30 September 2025, the employer notified the worker only with the wording “expiration of employment contract period, etc.” and failed to specifically state the “grounds for dismissal” as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the employer did not comply with the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal, and the dismissal is unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The parties’ assertions regarding the circumstances under which the second and third employment contracts were prepared are inconsistent, and there are no objective materials confirming the specific facts. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the worker was a regular employee or a fixed-term employee. However, even if, as the employer asserts, the worker was employed under an employment contract with a fixed term, it is undisputed that the worker continued to work without entering into a separate employment contract from the contract expiry date of 31 December 2024 until 30 September 2025. Therefore, although the employment contract with the worker was impliedly renewed, the employer’s notification on 30 September 2025 of the expiration of the employment contract period constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
When dismissing the worker as of 30 September 2025, the employer notified the worker only with the wording “expiration of employment contract period, etc.” and failed to specifically state the “grounds for dismissal” as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the employer did not comply with the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal, and the dismissal is unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair dismissal decision concerning “standing to sue (fewer than 5 employees · adjacent corporation)”’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- ‘Unfair dismissal decision concerning “dismissal during probation (3‑month performance evaluation period)”’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully upheld
- ‘Unfair dismissal decision concerning “existence of dismissal (daily workers supplied by manpower agency)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, implied renewal (continuous service), 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, “Unfair dismissal decision concerning ‘voluntary resignation (pressure on administrative manager to resign)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to implied renewal (continuous service) can be found at “List of decisions related to implied renewal (continuous service).”
- Case name: Unfair dismissal decision concerning “implied renewal (continuous service)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Fully upheld
- Decision-making body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal759 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.24
- Summary of outcome:
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The parties’ assertions regarding the circumstances under which the second and third employment contracts were prepared are inconsistent, and there are no objective materials confirming the specific facts. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the worker was a regular employee or a fixed-term employee. However, even if, as the employer asserts, the worker was employed under a fixed-term employment contract…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employer notified the worker not to report to work any longer on the ground that the employment contract period had expired. The worker claimed that this constituted unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy. The key factual issue was that, although the employment contract did not clearly indicate whether the worker was a regular or fixed-term employee, the worker continued to work for a long period even after the stated contract term had expired.
The worker argued that the termination should be regarded as a dismissal rather than a simple expiration of the term, and that there were also problems with the manner of notification. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission fully upheld the worker’s application and held that the employer’s dismissal was unfair.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issue in this case is: “Where work has continued after the expiry of the employment contract period without the execution of a separate contract, does the employer’s action of terminating the employment relationship on the ground of ‘expiration of the contract term’ constitute a dismissal, and if the employer fails to comply with the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, does this amount to unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case held that, even if it is unclear whether the worker was a regular or fixed-term employee due to conflicting assertions between the parties regarding the circumstances of the preparation of the second and third employment contracts, and even if, as the employer claims, the worker was employed under a fixed-term employment contract, the fact that the worker continued to work without any separate contract from the expiry of the contract term on 31 December 2024 until 30 September 2025 shows that the employment contract was impliedly renewed. Nevertheless, the employer’s notification as of 30 September 2025 stating only “expiration of employment contract period, etc.” constituted a unilateral termination by the employer, not a mere expiration of the term, and therefore amounted to a dismissal. Furthermore, because the employer failed to state the specific “grounds for dismissal” required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of the grounds for dismissal.
Accordingly, the dismissal in this case was held to be unfair, as it constituted a dismissal in terms of the method of terminating the employment relationship, yet lacked just cause for dismissal and failed to comply with the proper procedure (written notice).
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, even if a contract specifies a fixed term, if the worker continues to report to work after that term and the employer continues to pay wages without objection, “implied renewal” may be recognized, and the worker may challenge the termination as a dismissal rather than a mere expiration of the term. In addition, if the employer provides only abstract expressions such as “expiration of contract term” or “personnel adjustment” in writing without specifying concrete grounds for dismissal, the worker should consider applying to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal on the basis of a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
In proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, the key point is to secure and submit as much evidence as possible to prove continuous service, such as employment contracts, actual work logs, and pay slips.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when using fixed-term employment contracts, it is important to decide in advance, at the time of contract expiry, whether to actually terminate the employment relationship or to continue employing the worker. If the employer decides to continue employment, it should either execute a renewal contract or clearly determine whether to convert the worker to regular status, thereby preventing disputes over implied renewal. In particular, the common practice of notifying workers using only broad expressions such as “expiration of employment contract period, etc.” may easily lead to a finding of unfair dismissal due to a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, when dismissing a worker, the employer should state in writing the grounds for dismissal and the timing of dismissal in sufficient detail for the worker to understand.
Even where workforce reductions are necessary in other forms, such as collective redundancies, rather than disguising the grounds for dismissal as “expiration of term,” it is advisable, as a practical human resources and labor management strategy, to establish legitimate grounds and procedures for dismissal (consultation, notification, setting criteria, etc.), with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The parties’ assertions regarding the circumstances under which the second and third employment contracts were prepared are inconsistent, and there are no objective materials confirming the specific facts. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the worker was a regular employee or a fixed-term employee. However, even if, as the employer asserts, the worker was employed under an employment contract with a fixed term, it is undisputed that the worker continued to work without entering into a separate employment contract from the contract expiry date of 31 December 2024 until 30 September 2025. Therefore, although the employment contract with the worker was impliedly renewed, the employer’s notification on 30 September 2025 of the expiration of the employment contract period constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
When dismissing the worker as of 30 September 2025, the employer notified the worker only with the wording “expiration of employment contract period, etc.” and failed to specifically state the “grounds for dismissal” as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the employer did not comply with the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal, and the dismissal is unfair.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal exists
The parties’ assertions regarding the circumstances under which the second and third employment contracts were prepared are inconsistent, and there are no objective materials confirming the specific facts. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the worker was a regular employee or a fixed-term employee. However, even if, as the employer asserts, the worker was employed under an employment contract with a fixed term, it is undisputed that the worker continued to work without entering into a separate employment contract from the contract expiry date of 31 December 2024 until 30 September 2025. Therefore, although the employment contract with the worker was impliedly renewed, the employer’s notification on 30 September 2025 of the expiration of the employment contract period constitutes a dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
When dismissing the worker as of 30 September 2025, the employer notified the worker only with the wording “expiration of employment contract period, etc.” and failed to specifically state the “grounds for dismissal” as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the employer did not comply with the obligation to provide written notice of dismissal, and the dismissal is unfair. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair dismissal decision concerning “standing to sue (fewer than 5 employees · adjacent corporation)”’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- ‘Unfair dismissal decision concerning “dismissal during probation (3‑month performance evaluation period)”’ – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully upheld
- ‘Unfair dismissal decision concerning “existence of dismissal (daily workers supplied by manpower agency)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, implied renewal (continuous service), 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, “Unfair dismissal decision concerning ‘voluntary resignation (pressure on administrative manager to resign)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to implied renewal (continuous service) can be found at “List of decisions related to implied renewal (continuous service).”
