Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expectation of Renewal (Fixed-Term Professionals)” (Unfair Dismissal 118)
- Date2026/01/17 04:05
- Read 243
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employees prevailed in full on the issue of “expectation of renewal (fixed-term professionals).”
Decision Committee: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae890 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.17 · Case Result: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
a. Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed
Since the employees submitted their applications for remedy within three months from the date of termination of their employment contracts, the exclusion period for filing the application for remedy had not lapsed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns employees who had been working under fixed-term employment contracts. The employer refused to renew their contracts upon expiry, citing the expiration of the contract term, and the employees filed applications for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. The employees argued that, as their employment contracts had been repeatedly renewed, they had formed an expectation that the contracts would continue to be renewed, and that the employer’s refusal to renew in effect constituted unfair dismissal. They therefore sought relief from the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, and Labor Law Firm Law& acted as their representative in the proceedings.
The key issue in this case was whether “fixed-term professional employees who fall under the exception to the statutory limit on the period of use under the Act on the Protection, Etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees (the ‘Fixed-Term Act’) can also be recognized as having an expectation of renewal of their employment contracts, and whether refusal to renew in such circumstances constitutes unfair dismissal.”
The panel in this case, having examined the nature and content of the work performed by the employees, the history of repeated renewals of their contracts, the rules on contract renewal and how they had been operated in practice, and the established practice of contract renewal within the workplace, held that:
a relationship of trust had been formed whereby, if certain conditions were met, the employees’ contracts would be renewed; in other words, the employees had acquired an expectation of renewal.
Furthermore, the panel held that, even where an employee falls under an exception to the limit on the period of use—such as “utilization of professional knowledge or skills” under the proviso to Article 4(1) of the Fixed-Term Act—this does not, in and of itself, exclude the possibility of an expectation of renewal. Where an expectation of renewal has already been formed, the employer must have objective and reasonable grounds if it wishes to disregard that expectation and refuse to renew the contract.
In line with the legal principles established by Supreme Court precedents, the panel further noted that, where an expectation of renewal is recognized for a fixed-term employee, the burden of proof regarding the justifiability of a refusal to renew lies with the employer. The employer must prove specific reasons such as the nature of the business, staffing needs, the employee’s work performance and attitude, or failure to satisfy the renewal requirements set out in the rules.
Nevertheless, in this case, the employer merely repeated abstract assertions such as expiry of the contract term and internal staffing needs. It failed to present objective evidence regarding the individual employees’ performance or attitude, the specific need for organizational restructuring, or business downsizing. In particular, given that the employer had continued to renew contracts for other employees performing the same or similar duties, the panel found it difficult to view the reasons for refusing to renew the applicants’ contracts as reasonable.
The panel therefore held that the dismissal in this case was unfair, as the employer had excluded the expectation of renewal recognized for the fixed-term employees without any reasonable grounds.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in respect of fixed-term employees who fall under an exception to the statutory limit on the period of use under the Fixed-Term Act, and for whom an expectation of renewal has been formed through repeated renewals and workplace practice, the employer may refuse renewal solely on the ground of expiry of the contract term, without any further proof.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
First, the Commission found that, even though the employees were fixed-term professional employees who fell under an exception to the statutory limit on the period of use under the Fixed-Term Act, they were nonetheless fixed-term employees, as their employment contracts expressly provided for a one-year term and those contracts had been repeatedly renewed.
Second, the Commission found that the employees’ duties were regular and continuous tasks linked to the ongoing operation of the business; that there was a substantial history of contract renewals; and that, under the internal rules and actual personnel practices, renewal was ordinarily granted when certain conditions were met. Taking these factors together, the Commission held that a legitimate expectation of renewal (expectation of renewal) of the employment contracts had been formed on the part of the employees.
Third, the Commission held that, where an expectation of renewal is recognized, the employer must have objective and reasonable grounds, in light of social norms, to exclude that expectation and refuse renewal, and that the burden of proof lies with the employer. As the employer in this case failed to prove any specific grounds such as the need for workforce adjustment or deterioration in the employees’ work attitude or performance, the Commission concluded that there was no reasonable ground for refusing to renew the employment contracts.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if you are a fixed-term employee, an expectation of renewal may be recognized where your contract has been renewed multiple times, your business or duties are regular and continuous, and there is a rule or practice to the effect that “renewal is the norm absent special circumstances.”
If the employer refuses renewal solely on the ground of “expiry of the contract term” and fails to present specific and objective reasons, there is a high likelihood that the refusal will be deemed unfair dismissal. Accordingly, once you receive notice of contract expiry, you should immediately secure relevant materials—such as the notice itself, performance evaluations, and examples of renewal for colleagues—and file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission within the three‑month exclusion period.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, even for fixed-term employees—particularly professional employees who fall under an exception to the statutory limit on the period of use under the Fixed-Term Act—if contracts are being repeatedly renewed, you must assume that this alone may give rise to an expectation of renewal and plan your HR strategy accordingly.
You should clearly set out in employment contracts and HR rules the requirements, evaluation criteria, and procedures for contract renewal, and in practice maintain evaluation records and minutes of meetings in accordance with those criteria. When refusing renewal, you must be prepared with sufficient objective grounds—such as poor performance, organizational downsizing, or business reasons comparable to those required for collective redundancies—and supporting documentation, so that you can mount a defense before the Labor Relations Commission.
Finally, if you intend to use the expiry of fixed-term employees’ contracts as a means of workforce restructuring, you should note that abstract reasons such as internal circumstances or an intent to circumvent Article 4 of the Fixed-Term Act will not be recognized as reasonable grounds. Where necessary, you should design your HR and labor-management strategy in a way that satisfies the legal principles governing collective redundancies.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed
Since the employees submitted their applications for remedy within three months from the date of termination of their employment contracts, the exclusion period for filing the application for remedy had not lapsed.
b. Whether the employees were fixed-term employees
The employees fell under an exception to the limit on the period of use of fixed-term employees, and their employment contracts specified a one-year contract term; therefore, they were fixed-term employees.
c. Whether an expectation of renewal of the employment contracts was recognized
In light of the nature of the work performed by the employees, the history of renewals of their employment contracts, the rules on contract renewal, and the established practice of contract renewal to date, the employees were recognized as having an expectation of renewal of their employment contracts.
d. Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusing to renew the employment contracts
Although the burden of proof regarding the reasonable grounds for refusing renewal lies with the employer, the employer failed to prove any such grounds. Therefore, it could not be found that there were reasonable grounds for refusing to renew the employment contracts.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed
Since the employees submitted their applications for remedy within three months from the date of termination of their employment contracts, the exclusion period for filing the application for remedy had not lapsed.
b. Whether the employees were fixed-term employees
The employees fell under an exception to the limit on the period of use of fixed-term employees, and their employment contracts specified a one-year contract term; therefore, they were fixed-term employees.
c. Whether an expectation of renewal of the employment contracts was recognized
In light of the nature of the work performed by the employees, the history of renewals of their employment contracts, the rules on contract renewal, and the established practice of contract renewal to date, the employees were recognized as having an expectation of renewal of their employment contracts.
d. Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusing to renew the employment contracts
Although the burden of proof regarding the reasonable grounds for refusing renewal lies with the employer, the employer failed to prove any such grounds. Therefore, it could not be found that there were reasonable grounds for refusing to renew the employment contracts. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of renewal (fixed-term professionals), refusal to renew fixed-term contracts, 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, “‘Mutual Termination of Resignation Letter (Text Message Proposing a Four-Day Workweek)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to expectation of renewal (fixed-term professionals) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Renewal (Fixed-Term Professionals).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employees prevailed in full on the issue of “expectation of renewal (fixed-term professionals).”
Decision Committee: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae890 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.17 · Case Result: Fully Upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
a. Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed
Since the employees submitted their applications for remedy within three months from the date of termination of their employment contracts, the exclusion period for filing the application for remedy had not lapsed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns employees who had been working under fixed-term employment contracts. The employer refused to renew their contracts upon expiry, citing the expiration of the contract term, and the employees filed applications for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. The employees argued that, as their employment contracts had been repeatedly renewed, they had formed an expectation that the contracts would continue to be renewed, and that the employer’s refusal to renew in effect constituted unfair dismissal. They therefore sought relief from the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, and Labor Law Firm Law& acted as their representative in the proceedings.
The key issue in this case was whether “fixed-term professional employees who fall under the exception to the statutory limit on the period of use under the Act on the Protection, Etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees (the ‘Fixed-Term Act’) can also be recognized as having an expectation of renewal of their employment contracts, and whether refusal to renew in such circumstances constitutes unfair dismissal.”
The panel in this case, having examined the nature and content of the work performed by the employees, the history of repeated renewals of their contracts, the rules on contract renewal and how they had been operated in practice, and the established practice of contract renewal within the workplace, held that:
a relationship of trust had been formed whereby, if certain conditions were met, the employees’ contracts would be renewed; in other words, the employees had acquired an expectation of renewal.
Furthermore, the panel held that, even where an employee falls under an exception to the limit on the period of use—such as “utilization of professional knowledge or skills” under the proviso to Article 4(1) of the Fixed-Term Act—this does not, in and of itself, exclude the possibility of an expectation of renewal. Where an expectation of renewal has already been formed, the employer must have objective and reasonable grounds if it wishes to disregard that expectation and refuse to renew the contract.
In line with the legal principles established by Supreme Court precedents, the panel further noted that, where an expectation of renewal is recognized for a fixed-term employee, the burden of proof regarding the justifiability of a refusal to renew lies with the employer. The employer must prove specific reasons such as the nature of the business, staffing needs, the employee’s work performance and attitude, or failure to satisfy the renewal requirements set out in the rules.
Nevertheless, in this case, the employer merely repeated abstract assertions such as expiry of the contract term and internal staffing needs. It failed to present objective evidence regarding the individual employees’ performance or attitude, the specific need for organizational restructuring, or business downsizing. In particular, given that the employer had continued to renew contracts for other employees performing the same or similar duties, the panel found it difficult to view the reasons for refusing to renew the applicants’ contracts as reasonable.
The panel therefore held that the dismissal in this case was unfair, as the employer had excluded the expectation of renewal recognized for the fixed-term employees without any reasonable grounds.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case was whether, in respect of fixed-term employees who fall under an exception to the statutory limit on the period of use under the Fixed-Term Act, and for whom an expectation of renewal has been formed through repeated renewals and workplace practice, the employer may refuse renewal solely on the ground of expiry of the contract term, without any further proof.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
First, the Commission found that, even though the employees were fixed-term professional employees who fell under an exception to the statutory limit on the period of use under the Fixed-Term Act, they were nonetheless fixed-term employees, as their employment contracts expressly provided for a one-year term and those contracts had been repeatedly renewed.
Second, the Commission found that the employees’ duties were regular and continuous tasks linked to the ongoing operation of the business; that there was a substantial history of contract renewals; and that, under the internal rules and actual personnel practices, renewal was ordinarily granted when certain conditions were met. Taking these factors together, the Commission held that a legitimate expectation of renewal (expectation of renewal) of the employment contracts had been formed on the part of the employees.
Third, the Commission held that, where an expectation of renewal is recognized, the employer must have objective and reasonable grounds, in light of social norms, to exclude that expectation and refuse renewal, and that the burden of proof lies with the employer. As the employer in this case failed to prove any specific grounds such as the need for workforce adjustment or deterioration in the employees’ work attitude or performance, the Commission concluded that there was no reasonable ground for refusing to renew the employment contracts.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if you are a fixed-term employee, an expectation of renewal may be recognized where your contract has been renewed multiple times, your business or duties are regular and continuous, and there is a rule or practice to the effect that “renewal is the norm absent special circumstances.”
If the employer refuses renewal solely on the ground of “expiry of the contract term” and fails to present specific and objective reasons, there is a high likelihood that the refusal will be deemed unfair dismissal. Accordingly, once you receive notice of contract expiry, you should immediately secure relevant materials—such as the notice itself, performance evaluations, and examples of renewal for colleagues—and file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission within the three‑month exclusion period.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the company’s perspective, even for fixed-term employees—particularly professional employees who fall under an exception to the statutory limit on the period of use under the Fixed-Term Act—if contracts are being repeatedly renewed, you must assume that this alone may give rise to an expectation of renewal and plan your HR strategy accordingly.
You should clearly set out in employment contracts and HR rules the requirements, evaluation criteria, and procedures for contract renewal, and in practice maintain evaluation records and minutes of meetings in accordance with those criteria. When refusing renewal, you must be prepared with sufficient objective grounds—such as poor performance, organizational downsizing, or business reasons comparable to those required for collective redundancies—and supporting documentation, so that you can mount a defense before the Labor Relations Commission.
Finally, if you intend to use the expiry of fixed-term employees’ contracts as a means of workforce restructuring, you should note that abstract reasons such as internal circumstances or an intent to circumvent Article 4 of the Fixed-Term Act will not be recognized as reasonable grounds. Where necessary, you should design your HR and labor-management strategy in a way that satisfies the legal principles governing collective redundancies.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed
Since the employees submitted their applications for remedy within three months from the date of termination of their employment contracts, the exclusion period for filing the application for remedy had not lapsed.
b. Whether the employees were fixed-term employees
The employees fell under an exception to the limit on the period of use of fixed-term employees, and their employment contracts specified a one-year contract term; therefore, they were fixed-term employees.
c. Whether an expectation of renewal of the employment contracts was recognized
In light of the nature of the work performed by the employees, the history of renewals of their employment contracts, the rules on contract renewal, and the established practice of contract renewal to date, the employees were recognized as having an expectation of renewal of their employment contracts.
d. Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusing to renew the employment contracts
Although the burden of proof regarding the reasonable grounds for refusing renewal lies with the employer, the employer failed to prove any such grounds. Therefore, it could not be found that there were reasonable grounds for refusing to renew the employment contracts.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Whether the exclusion period for filing an application for remedy had lapsed
Since the employees submitted their applications for remedy within three months from the date of termination of their employment contracts, the exclusion period for filing the application for remedy had not lapsed.
b. Whether the employees were fixed-term employees
The employees fell under an exception to the limit on the period of use of fixed-term employees, and their employment contracts specified a one-year contract term; therefore, they were fixed-term employees.
c. Whether an expectation of renewal of the employment contracts was recognized
In light of the nature of the work performed by the employees, the history of renewals of their employment contracts, the rules on contract renewal, and the established practice of contract renewal to date, the employees were recognized as having an expectation of renewal of their employment contracts.
d. Whether there were reasonable grounds for refusing to renew the employment contracts
Although the burden of proof regarding the reasonable grounds for refusing renewal lies with the employer, the employer failed to prove any such grounds. Therefore, it could not be found that there were reasonable grounds for refusing to renew the employment contracts. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of Decision: – Case Result: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of renewal (fixed-term professionals), refusal to renew fixed-term contracts, 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, “‘Mutual Termination of Resignation Letter (Text Message Proposing a Four-Day Workweek)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to expectation of renewal (fixed-term professionals) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Renewal (Fixed-Term Professionals).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
