Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Expectation of Renewal Right (Building Management · Cleaning)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 138)
- Date2026/01/23 00:05
- Read 236
[Case Information]
This case is a decision that concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld, concerning the issue of “expectation of renewal right (building management · cleaning).”
Decision Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae1363 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Re‑examination Application
2025.12.31 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether an expectation of renewal right under the employment contract exists
① Article 61 of the Rules of Employment sets the mandatory retirement age at 70, and the worker had not reached the retirement age at the time the employment contract ended;
② The worker was in charge of building management and cleaning, which constitutes continuous and ongoing work;
③ The service contract period for the employer’s management of the relevant building had not yet expired;
④ The employer had renewed the worker’s employment contract twice without any separate evaluation;
⑤ Other workers, apart from the worker concerned, had their contracts renewed and continued to work;
In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that the worker had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a fixed-term worker engaged in building management and cleaning who, upon being refused renewal of his contract on the ground of contract expiration, applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, alleging unfair dismissal. The Central Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the worker had an expectation of renewal right in light of the mandatory retirement provision in the Rules of Employment, repeated contract renewals, and the renewal practices for comparable workers, and whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing renewal.
This decision provides an important standard on how to view a fixed-term worker’s expectation of renewal right and the scope of the employer’s discretion to refuse renewal in the context of unfair dismissal disputes. Labor Law Firm Law& also refers to this decision with particular care when advising on collective redundancies and disputes over contract expiration.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where a fixed-term worker engaged in building management and cleaning prior to the mandatory retirement age (70) is recognized as having an expectation of renewal right, whether the refusal to renew the contract on the grounds of disciplinary action (two-month suspension) and destruction of the relationship of trust constitutes unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the Rules of Employment set the mandatory retirement age at 70 and the worker had not reached that age; that building management and cleaning work is continuous and ongoing; that the service contract period for management of the relevant building remained; that the employer had already renewed the contract twice without any separate evaluation; and that other comparable workers continued to work through repeated renewals.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the worker had an expectation of renewal right that the employment contract would continue to be renewed.
However, the panel also found that there were no provisions in the Rules of Employment or elsewhere prescribing specific procedures or criteria for renewal evaluations and that the employer had exercised discretion in deciding whether to renew contracts; that the worker had been subjected to a two-month suspension during the final contract term; and that, due to the grounds for that disciplinary action, the relationship of trust between the employer and the worker appeared to have been seriously damaged.
On this basis, the panel held that, although the worker’s expectation of renewal right was recognized, there were reasonable grounds for refusing renewal, and therefore:
The dismissal measure in this case, namely the refusal to renew the contract despite the existence of an expectation of renewal right, was determined not to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even fixed-term workers may be recognized as having an expectation of renewal right where they have performed continuous and ongoing duties over a long period, and where there is a pattern of repeated renewals and consistent renewal practices for comparable workers. However, even if an expectation of renewal right is recognized, the employer’s refusal to renew may be justified if there are grounds for disciplinary action or serious damage to the relationship of trust. It is therefore important to manage in advance any conduct or conflict situations that may lead to disciplinary measures.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, it is necessary to set out in detail, in the Rules of Employment and HR regulations, the requirements and evaluation procedures for renewal of fixed-term workers’ contracts, and to make renewal decisions consistently in accordance with those standards in practice. In particular, where an expectation of renewal right has formed and the company intends to refuse renewal, it should be able to objectively substantiate “reasonable grounds,” such as disciplinary reasons or issues with work performance or work attitude, by systematically managing evaluation materials, disciplinary records, interview records, and the like.
As this decision illustrates, even where the form is contract expiration rather than collective redundancy, the matter may in substance develop into an unfair dismissal dispute. Accordingly, it is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review HR and labor risk.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of an Expectation of Renewal Right
① Article 61 of the Rules of Employment sets the mandatory retirement age at 70, and the worker had not reached the retirement age at the time the employment contract ended;
② The worker was in charge of building management and cleaning, which constitutes continuous and ongoing work;
③ The service contract period for the employer’s management of the relevant building had not yet expired;
④ The employer had renewed the worker’s employment contract twice without any separate evaluation;
⑤ Other workers, apart from the worker concerned, had their contracts renewed and continued to work.
In light of these circumstances, it is determined that the worker had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed.
B. Whether There Were Reasonable Grounds for Refusing Renewal
① There are no provisions in the Rules of Employment or elsewhere prescribing procedures for evaluation for renewal of employment contracts;
② The employer has discretion to decide whether to renew employment contracts;
③ The worker received a disciplinary measure of a two-month suspension on 31 October 2024, within the term of the final employment contract concluded with the employer;
④ In view of the grounds for that disciplinary action, the relationship of trust between the worker and the employer appears to have been seriously damaged.
Taking these factors into account, it is reasonable to view that the employer had reasonable grounds to refuse renewal of the worker’s employment contract.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Existence of an Expectation of Renewal Right
① Article 61 of the Rules of Employment sets the mandatory retirement age at 70, and the worker had not reached the retirement age at the time the employment contract ended;
② The worker was in charge of building management and cleaning, which constitutes continuous and ongoing work;
③ The service contract period for the employer’s management of the relevant building had not yet expired;
④ The employer had renewed the worker’s employment contract twice without any separate evaluation;
⑤ Other workers, apart from the worker concerned, had their contracts renewed and continued to work.
In light of these circumstances, it is determined that the worker had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed.
B. Whether There Were Reasonable Grounds for Refusing Renewal
① There are no provisions in the Rules of Employment or elsewhere prescribing procedures for evaluation for renewal of employment contracts;
② The employer has discretion to decide whether to renew employment contracts;
③ The worker received a disciplinary measure of a two-month suspension on 31 October 2024, within the term of the final employment contract concluded with the employer;
④ In view of the grounds for that disciplinary action, the relationship of trust between the worker and the employer appears to have been seriously damaged.
Taking these factors into account, it is reasonable to view that the employer had reasonable grounds to refuse renewal of the worker’s employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expectation of Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (HR Committee Qualitative Evaluation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Request for Acceptance Text Message)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of renewal right (building management · cleaning), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, disciplinary dismissal, 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, “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Request for Acceptance Text Message)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the expectation of renewal right (building management · cleaning) can be viewed together in the “Expectation of Renewal Right (Building Management · Cleaning) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision that concluded with the first-instance decision being upheld, concerning the issue of “expectation of renewal right (building management · cleaning).”
Decision Body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae1363 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Re‑examination Application
2025.12.31 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of Key Issues:
A. Whether an expectation of renewal right under the employment contract exists
① Article 61 of the Rules of Employment sets the mandatory retirement age at 70, and the worker had not reached the retirement age at the time the employment contract ended;
② The worker was in charge of building management and cleaning, which constitutes continuous and ongoing work;
③ The service contract period for the employer’s management of the relevant building had not yet expired;
④ The employer had renewed the worker’s employment contract twice without any separate evaluation;
⑤ Other workers, apart from the worker concerned, had their contracts renewed and continued to work;
In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that the worker had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a fixed-term worker engaged in building management and cleaning who, upon being refused renewal of his contract on the ground of contract expiration, applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, alleging unfair dismissal. The Central Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the worker had an expectation of renewal right in light of the mandatory retirement provision in the Rules of Employment, repeated contract renewals, and the renewal practices for comparable workers, and whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing renewal.
This decision provides an important standard on how to view a fixed-term worker’s expectation of renewal right and the scope of the employer’s discretion to refuse renewal in the context of unfair dismissal disputes. Labor Law Firm Law& also refers to this decision with particular care when advising on collective redundancies and disputes over contract expiration.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where a fixed-term worker engaged in building management and cleaning prior to the mandatory retirement age (70) is recognized as having an expectation of renewal right, whether the refusal to renew the contract on the grounds of disciplinary action (two-month suspension) and destruction of the relationship of trust constitutes unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the Rules of Employment set the mandatory retirement age at 70 and the worker had not reached that age; that building management and cleaning work is continuous and ongoing; that the service contract period for management of the relevant building remained; that the employer had already renewed the contract twice without any separate evaluation; and that other comparable workers continued to work through repeated renewals.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the worker had an expectation of renewal right that the employment contract would continue to be renewed.
However, the panel also found that there were no provisions in the Rules of Employment or elsewhere prescribing specific procedures or criteria for renewal evaluations and that the employer had exercised discretion in deciding whether to renew contracts; that the worker had been subjected to a two-month suspension during the final contract term; and that, due to the grounds for that disciplinary action, the relationship of trust between the employer and the worker appeared to have been seriously damaged.
On this basis, the panel held that, although the worker’s expectation of renewal right was recognized, there were reasonable grounds for refusing renewal, and therefore:
The dismissal measure in this case, namely the refusal to renew the contract despite the existence of an expectation of renewal right, was determined not to be unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even fixed-term workers may be recognized as having an expectation of renewal right where they have performed continuous and ongoing duties over a long period, and where there is a pattern of repeated renewals and consistent renewal practices for comparable workers. However, even if an expectation of renewal right is recognized, the employer’s refusal to renew may be justified if there are grounds for disciplinary action or serious damage to the relationship of trust. It is therefore important to manage in advance any conduct or conflict situations that may lead to disciplinary measures.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the company’s standpoint, it is necessary to set out in detail, in the Rules of Employment and HR regulations, the requirements and evaluation procedures for renewal of fixed-term workers’ contracts, and to make renewal decisions consistently in accordance with those standards in practice. In particular, where an expectation of renewal right has formed and the company intends to refuse renewal, it should be able to objectively substantiate “reasonable grounds,” such as disciplinary reasons or issues with work performance or work attitude, by systematically managing evaluation materials, disciplinary records, interview records, and the like.
As this decision illustrates, even where the form is contract expiration rather than collective redundancy, the matter may in substance develop into an unfair dismissal dispute. Accordingly, it is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to review HR and labor risk.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Existence of an Expectation of Renewal Right
① Article 61 of the Rules of Employment sets the mandatory retirement age at 70, and the worker had not reached the retirement age at the time the employment contract ended;
② The worker was in charge of building management and cleaning, which constitutes continuous and ongoing work;
③ The service contract period for the employer’s management of the relevant building had not yet expired;
④ The employer had renewed the worker’s employment contract twice without any separate evaluation;
⑤ Other workers, apart from the worker concerned, had their contracts renewed and continued to work.
In light of these circumstances, it is determined that the worker had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed.
B. Whether There Were Reasonable Grounds for Refusing Renewal
① There are no provisions in the Rules of Employment or elsewhere prescribing procedures for evaluation for renewal of employment contracts;
② The employer has discretion to decide whether to renew employment contracts;
③ The worker received a disciplinary measure of a two-month suspension on 31 October 2024, within the term of the final employment contract concluded with the employer;
④ In view of the grounds for that disciplinary action, the relationship of trust between the worker and the employer appears to have been seriously damaged.
Taking these factors into account, it is reasonable to view that the employer had reasonable grounds to refuse renewal of the worker’s employment contract.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Existence of an Expectation of Renewal Right
① Article 61 of the Rules of Employment sets the mandatory retirement age at 70, and the worker had not reached the retirement age at the time the employment contract ended;
② The worker was in charge of building management and cleaning, which constitutes continuous and ongoing work;
③ The service contract period for the employer’s management of the relevant building had not yet expired;
④ The employer had renewed the worker’s employment contract twice without any separate evaluation;
⑤ Other workers, apart from the worker concerned, had their contracts renewed and continued to work.
In light of these circumstances, it is determined that the worker had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed.
B. Whether There Were Reasonable Grounds for Refusing Renewal
① There are no provisions in the Rules of Employment or elsewhere prescribing procedures for evaluation for renewal of employment contracts;
② The employer has discretion to decide whether to renew employment contracts;
③ The worker received a disciplinary measure of a two-month suspension on 31 October 2024, within the term of the final employment contract concluded with the employer;
④ In view of the grounds for that disciplinary action, the relationship of trust between the worker and the employer appears to have been seriously damaged.
Taking these factors into account, it is reasonable to view that the employer had reasonable grounds to refuse renewal of the worker’s employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Expectation of Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (HR Committee Qualitative Evaluation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Request for Acceptance Text Message)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of renewal right (building management · cleaning), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, disciplinary dismissal, 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, “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Request for Acceptance Text Message)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the expectation of renewal right (building management · cleaning) can be viewed together in the “Expectation of Renewal Right (Building Management · Cleaning) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
