Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Extinction of Relief Interest (Short-Term Fixed-Term)” (Unfair Dismissal 163)
- Date2026/01/31 04:05
- Read 229
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the issue of “extinction of relief interest (short-term fixed-term)” was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1300 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Re‑examination Application
December 18, 2025 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues: At the time the employee filed for unfair dismissal relief, the term of the employment contract had already expired, so the employee no longer held the status of an employee and therefore no longer had any relief interest. Even assuming that a relief interest did exist, the term of the employment contract concluded between the employee and the employer was from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is a Central Labor Relations Commission decision concerning a short-term fixed-term employee who filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, but whose employment contract expired while the case was pending before the Labor Relations Commission. The employee argued that the dismissal was unfair and sought reinstatement to the original position and payment of back wages from the Commission, while the employer argued that the contract term had already expired and that there was no legitimate expectation of contract renewal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: “Whether a fixed-term employee whose contract period was set from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 has any relief interest before the Labor Relations Commission where, at the time of filing the unfair dismissal relief application, the term of the employment contract had already expired, and furthermore, whether a legitimate expectation of contract renewal can be recognized.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, at the time the employee filed the unfair dismissal relief application, the term of the employment contract had already expired and the employee no longer held the status of an employee; that the employment contract specified the contract period as from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 and clearly stated that the employment contract would be terminated on the contract expiry date; and that the employer had conducted three comprehensive evaluations of the employee’s work attitude and had evaluated the employee as “unsuitable,” exercising discretion in deciding whether to renew the contract.
In light of the above, the panel held that, in principle, the employee’s relief interest had been extinguished, and even if monetary interests such as wages or severance pay remained, these were matters to be resolved through civil litigation.
Furthermore, since there were no provisions or established practices in the employment contract, work rules, or collective agreement providing that the contract would be automatically renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions, and given that renewal decisions had been made differently depending on the evaluation results, it was difficult to recognize a legitimate expectation of contract renewal.
On this basis, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Fixed-term employees who wish to challenge an unfair dismissal must pay close attention to whether they still hold employee status not only at the time of dismissal but also at the time they file the relief application with the Labor Relations Commission. Where the contract term is short, it is necessary to proceed with the relief application without delay immediately after the dismissal, and to actively allege and prove the existence of a “legitimate expectation of renewal” by presenting evidence of repeated renewal practices, renewal criteria and procedures, and the actual renewal status of comparable employees.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly state in the fixed-term employment contract the contract period and that the employment relationship will terminate upon expiry. It is also important to establish evaluation criteria and renewal standards in advance and operate them consistently. In addition, employers should document evaluations of work attitude and job performance and manage such records so that they can objectively explain the reasons for refusing renewal, thereby making it easier to respond to later claims that the employee was “in effect a permanent employee” or that a “legitimate expectation of renewal” should be recognized.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing fixed-term employment contracts (automatic termination upon expiry of the contract term, requirements for recognizing a legitimate expectation of renewal, standards for determining the existence of a relief interest, etc.), and to establish a strategy from the early stages of the case together with experts who have extensive experience in disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy, such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
At the time the employee filed the unfair dismissal relief application, the term of the employment contract had already expired, so the employee no longer held the status of an employee and therefore no longer had any relief interest. Even assuming that a relief interest did exist, the term of the employment contract concluded between the employee and the employer was from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025, and it was stipulated that the employment contract would also be terminated on the contract expiry date. It appears that the employer conducted three comprehensive evaluations of the employee’s work attitude and found the employee unsuitable. Accordingly, in the case of an employee who has concluded a fixed-term employment contract, the employment status as an employee naturally terminates upon expiry of that term, and if the contract is not renewed, the employee is deemed to have automatically retired even in the absence of an express manifestation of intent to refuse renewal, making it difficult to recognize any expectation right to contract renewal.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
At the time the employee filed the unfair dismissal relief application, the term of the employment contract had already expired, so the employee no longer held the status of an employee and therefore no longer had any relief interest. Even assuming that a relief interest did exist, the term of the employment contract concluded between the employee and the employer was from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025, and it was stipulated that the employment contract would also be terminated on the contract expiry date. It appears that the employer conducted three comprehensive evaluations of the employee’s work attitude and found the employee unsuitable. Accordingly, in the case of an employee who has concluded a fixed-term employment contract, the employment status as an employee naturally terminates upon expiry of that term, and if the contract is not renewed, the employee is deemed to have automatically retired even in the absence of an express manifestation of intent to refuse renewal, making it difficult to recognize any expectation right to contract renewal. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (short-term fixed-term), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, performance evaluation · poor performance, 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, “‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Watchtower Guard Post Laptop · Games)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (short-term fixed-term) can be found in the “Extinction of Relief Interest (Short-Term Fixed-Term) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the issue of “extinction of relief interest (short-term fixed-term)” was concluded by upholding the first-instance decision.
Decision Committee: Central Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae1300 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Re‑examination Application
December 18, 2025 · Case Result: First-instance decision upheld
Summary of key issues: At the time the employee filed for unfair dismissal relief, the term of the employment contract had already expired, so the employee no longer held the status of an employee and therefore no longer had any relief interest. Even assuming that a relief interest did exist, the term of the employment contract concluded between the employee and the employer was from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is a Central Labor Relations Commission decision concerning a short-term fixed-term employee who filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal, but whose employment contract expired while the case was pending before the Labor Relations Commission. The employee argued that the dismissal was unfair and sought reinstatement to the original position and payment of back wages from the Commission, while the employer argued that the contract term had already expired and that there was no legitimate expectation of contract renewal.
Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute
The issues in this case are: “Whether a fixed-term employee whose contract period was set from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 has any relief interest before the Labor Relations Commission where, at the time of filing the unfair dismissal relief application, the term of the employment contract had already expired, and furthermore, whether a legitimate expectation of contract renewal can be recognized.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that, at the time the employee filed the unfair dismissal relief application, the term of the employment contract had already expired and the employee no longer held the status of an employee; that the employment contract specified the contract period as from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 and clearly stated that the employment contract would be terminated on the contract expiry date; and that the employer had conducted three comprehensive evaluations of the employee’s work attitude and had evaluated the employee as “unsuitable,” exercising discretion in deciding whether to renew the contract.
In light of the above, the panel held that, in principle, the employee’s relief interest had been extinguished, and even if monetary interests such as wages or severance pay remained, these were matters to be resolved through civil litigation.
Furthermore, since there were no provisions or established practices in the employment contract, work rules, or collective agreement providing that the contract would be automatically renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions, and given that renewal decisions had been made differently depending on the evaluation results, it was difficult to recognize a legitimate expectation of contract renewal.
On this basis, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Fixed-term employees who wish to challenge an unfair dismissal must pay close attention to whether they still hold employee status not only at the time of dismissal but also at the time they file the relief application with the Labor Relations Commission. Where the contract term is short, it is necessary to proceed with the relief application without delay immediately after the dismissal, and to actively allege and prove the existence of a “legitimate expectation of renewal” by presenting evidence of repeated renewal practices, renewal criteria and procedures, and the actual renewal status of comparable employees.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly state in the fixed-term employment contract the contract period and that the employment relationship will terminate upon expiry. It is also important to establish evaluation criteria and renewal standards in advance and operate them consistently. In addition, employers should document evaluations of work attitude and job performance and manage such records so that they can objectively explain the reasons for refusing renewal, thereby making it easier to respond to later claims that the employee was “in effect a permanent employee” or that a “legitimate expectation of renewal” should be recognized.
To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to have an accurate understanding of the legal principles governing fixed-term employment contracts (automatic termination upon expiry of the contract term, requirements for recognizing a legitimate expectation of renewal, standards for determining the existence of a relief interest, etc.), and to establish a strategy from the early stages of the case together with experts who have extensive experience in disputes over unfair dismissal and redundancy, such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
At the time the employee filed the unfair dismissal relief application, the term of the employment contract had already expired, so the employee no longer held the status of an employee and therefore no longer had any relief interest. Even assuming that a relief interest did exist, the term of the employment contract concluded between the employee and the employer was from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025, and it was stipulated that the employment contract would also be terminated on the contract expiry date. It appears that the employer conducted three comprehensive evaluations of the employee’s work attitude and found the employee unsuitable. Accordingly, in the case of an employee who has concluded a fixed-term employment contract, the employment status as an employee naturally terminates upon expiry of that term, and if the contract is not renewed, the employee is deemed to have automatically retired even in the absence of an express manifestation of intent to refuse renewal, making it difficult to recognize any expectation right to contract renewal.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
At the time the employee filed the unfair dismissal relief application, the term of the employment contract had already expired, so the employee no longer held the status of an employee and therefore no longer had any relief interest. Even assuming that a relief interest did exist, the term of the employment contract concluded between the employee and the employer was from January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025, and it was stipulated that the employment contract would also be terminated on the contract expiry date. It appears that the employer conducted three comprehensive evaluations of the employee’s work attitude and found the employee unsuitable. Accordingly, in the case of an employee who has concluded a fixed-term employment contract, the employment status as an employee naturally terminates upon expiry of that term, and if the contract is not renewed, the employee is deemed to have automatically retired even in the absence of an express manifestation of intent to refuse renewal, making it difficult to recognize any expectation right to contract renewal. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (short-term fixed-term), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, performance evaluation · poor performance, 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, “‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Watchtower Guard Post Laptop · Games)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (short-term fixed-term) can be found in the “Extinction of Relief Interest (Short-Term Fixed-Term) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
