Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Refusal to Renew a Fixed-Term Contract (Hoist Kicking Incident) (Unfair Dismissal 169)
- Date2026/02/02 04:04
- Read 232
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal to renew (hoist kicking incident).”
Decision body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9068 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employee had a legitimate expectation of renewal: The employer and the employee had already renewed the fixed-term employment contract four times on identical terms, and the employer had stated that “the worksite is scheduled to be completed around 2027, and hoist operation will be necessary until completion.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, filed by a fixed-term employee in charge of operating a hoist. The employee’s fixed-term employment contract had been renewed four times on the same terms, but upon expiry of the last contract period, the employer declined to renew the contract.
Relying on, among other things, the employer’s statement that hoist operation would be necessary until the worksite’s completion around 2027, the employee argued that he had a legitimate expectation that his employment contract would be renewed, and that the refusal to renew constituted an unfair dismissal. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission identified the core issues as (i) whether the employee had an expectation of renewal and, if so, (ii) whether there nonetheless existed reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where a fixed-term employment contract has been repeatedly renewed several times and the employee has acquired a legitimate expectation of renewal, is it lawful for the employer to refuse renewal of the contract on the ground of an act of ‘kicking a female employee’ captured on the hoist’s internal CCTV?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employee had an expectation of renewal of the employment contract, based on the following: the employer’s statement that the worksite was scheduled to be completed around 2027 and that hoist operation would be necessary until then; the fact that the employment contract between the employee and the employer had been renewed four times on identical terms; and the fact that, given the nature of the employee’s duties as a hoist operator, a trust had been formed that he would be able to continue working for the duration of the construction period.
Nevertheless, the panel also noted that the hoist’s internal CCTV clearly captured the employee kicking a female employee among two male and female employees riding the hoist. Such violent and dangerous conduct constitutes a very serious act of misconduct, considering the characteristics of a construction site where safety must be the top priority and the responsibilities associated with hoist operation. In light of social norms, it is reasonable to view that it would be difficult to continue renewing a fixed-term employment contract with an employee whose conduct of this nature has been confirmed. On this basis, the panel held that there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract in this case.
The panel therefore concluded that, although the employee’s expectation of renewal was recognized, there existed reasonable grounds—viewed as socially acceptable—for the refusal to renew based on the serious misconduct that occurred thereafter. Accordingly, the refusal to renew did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, this case confirms that an expectation of renewal may be recognized where a fixed-term employment contract has been repeatedly renewed several times and the employer has made statements to the effect that “the employee will be needed until completion of the construction.”
However, even if an expectation of renewal is recognized, where there is misconduct that is socially unacceptable—such as assault, sexual harassment, or serious violations of safety rules—that misconduct itself may constitute a reasonable ground for refusal to renew, making it difficult to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Furthermore, where misconduct is confirmed by objective evidence such as on-site CCTV footage or co-worker statements, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts tend to grant broad discretion to the employer’s decision to refuse renewal. Employees must therefore manage their own conduct standards with particular strictness, especially in relation to safety and respect for others’ dignity.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to always bear in mind the possibility that a fixed-term employee may be found to have an expectation of renewal, and to recognize that practices of repeated renewal, explanations about the construction period, and other statements or conduct during recruitment and employment may later serve as grounds for legal disputes.
In particular, where an expectation of renewal is recognized, Supreme Court precedents make clear that the burden of proof regarding the existence of reasonable grounds for refusal to renew lies with the employer. On this premise, employers should systematically secure and organize objective materials—such as CCTV footage, written statements, and disciplinary records—concerning the nature of the misconduct, its circumstances, and the likelihood of recurrence.
In addition, as with redundancy dismissals, where renewal is refused not for managerial reasons but for reasons attributable to the employee, employers should carefully examine, from a legal perspective, whether the conduct in question in fact makes it significantly difficult for the employee to perform his or her duties, or poses a serious risk to workplace order or safety, and whether the refusal to renew satisfies the standard of social acceptability, before taking action.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether an expectation of renewal is recognized:
The employer and the employee had already renewed the fixed-term employment contract four times on identical terms, and the employer had stated that “the worksite is scheduled to be completed around 2027, and hoist operation will be necessary until completion.” Accordingly, it is deemed that, as an employee whose duty was hoist operation, the employee had sufficient grounds to form an expectation that the employment contract would be renewed for as long as the worksite remained in operation.
B. Whether there existed reasonable grounds for refusal to renew:
Since CCTV installed inside the hoist confirmed that the employee kicked a female employee among two male and female employees riding the hoist, it is determined that there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract in this case.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether an expectation of renewal is recognized:
The employer and the employee had already renewed the fixed-term employment contract four times on identical terms, and the employer had stated that “the worksite is scheduled to be completed around 2027, and hoist operation will be necessary until completion.” Accordingly, it is deemed that, as an employee whose duty was hoist operation, the employee had sufficient grounds to form an expectation that the employment contract would be renewed for as long as the worksite remained in operation.
B. Whether there existed reasonable grounds for refusal to renew:
Since CCTV installed inside the hoist confirmed that the employee kicked a female employee among two male and female employees riding the hoist, it is determined that there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract in this case. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, refusal to renew (hoist kicking incident), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Employee Status (Executive Director of Overseas Parent Company),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to refusal to renew (hoist kicking incident) can be viewed together at the “List of Decisions Related to Refusal to Renew (Hoist Kicking Incident).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “refusal to renew (hoist kicking incident).”
Decision body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae9068 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.17 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employee had a legitimate expectation of renewal: The employer and the employee had already renewed the fixed-term employment contract four times on identical terms, and the employer had stated that “the worksite is scheduled to be completed around 2027, and hoist operation will be necessary until completion.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, filed by a fixed-term employee in charge of operating a hoist. The employee’s fixed-term employment contract had been renewed four times on the same terms, but upon expiry of the last contract period, the employer declined to renew the contract.
Relying on, among other things, the employer’s statement that hoist operation would be necessary until the worksite’s completion around 2027, the employee argued that he had a legitimate expectation that his employment contract would be renewed, and that the refusal to renew constituted an unfair dismissal. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission identified the core issues as (i) whether the employee had an expectation of renewal and, if so, (ii) whether there nonetheless existed reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where a fixed-term employment contract has been repeatedly renewed several times and the employee has acquired a legitimate expectation of renewal, is it lawful for the employer to refuse renewal of the contract on the ground of an act of ‘kicking a female employee’ captured on the hoist’s internal CCTV?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employee had an expectation of renewal of the employment contract, based on the following: the employer’s statement that the worksite was scheduled to be completed around 2027 and that hoist operation would be necessary until then; the fact that the employment contract between the employee and the employer had been renewed four times on identical terms; and the fact that, given the nature of the employee’s duties as a hoist operator, a trust had been formed that he would be able to continue working for the duration of the construction period.
Nevertheless, the panel also noted that the hoist’s internal CCTV clearly captured the employee kicking a female employee among two male and female employees riding the hoist. Such violent and dangerous conduct constitutes a very serious act of misconduct, considering the characteristics of a construction site where safety must be the top priority and the responsibilities associated with hoist operation. In light of social norms, it is reasonable to view that it would be difficult to continue renewing a fixed-term employment contract with an employee whose conduct of this nature has been confirmed. On this basis, the panel held that there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract in this case.
The panel therefore concluded that, although the employee’s expectation of renewal was recognized, there existed reasonable grounds—viewed as socially acceptable—for the refusal to renew based on the serious misconduct that occurred thereafter. Accordingly, the refusal to renew did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, this case confirms that an expectation of renewal may be recognized where a fixed-term employment contract has been repeatedly renewed several times and the employer has made statements to the effect that “the employee will be needed until completion of the construction.”
However, even if an expectation of renewal is recognized, where there is misconduct that is socially unacceptable—such as assault, sexual harassment, or serious violations of safety rules—that misconduct itself may constitute a reasonable ground for refusal to renew, making it difficult to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Furthermore, where misconduct is confirmed by objective evidence such as on-site CCTV footage or co-worker statements, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts tend to grant broad discretion to the employer’s decision to refuse renewal. Employees must therefore manage their own conduct standards with particular strictness, especially in relation to safety and respect for others’ dignity.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to always bear in mind the possibility that a fixed-term employee may be found to have an expectation of renewal, and to recognize that practices of repeated renewal, explanations about the construction period, and other statements or conduct during recruitment and employment may later serve as grounds for legal disputes.
In particular, where an expectation of renewal is recognized, Supreme Court precedents make clear that the burden of proof regarding the existence of reasonable grounds for refusal to renew lies with the employer. On this premise, employers should systematically secure and organize objective materials—such as CCTV footage, written statements, and disciplinary records—concerning the nature of the misconduct, its circumstances, and the likelihood of recurrence.
In addition, as with redundancy dismissals, where renewal is refused not for managerial reasons but for reasons attributable to the employee, employers should carefully examine, from a legal perspective, whether the conduct in question in fact makes it significantly difficult for the employee to perform his or her duties, or poses a serious risk to workplace order or safety, and whether the refusal to renew satisfies the standard of social acceptability, before taking action.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether an expectation of renewal is recognized:
The employer and the employee had already renewed the fixed-term employment contract four times on identical terms, and the employer had stated that “the worksite is scheduled to be completed around 2027, and hoist operation will be necessary until completion.” Accordingly, it is deemed that, as an employee whose duty was hoist operation, the employee had sufficient grounds to form an expectation that the employment contract would be renewed for as long as the worksite remained in operation.
B. Whether there existed reasonable grounds for refusal to renew:
Since CCTV installed inside the hoist confirmed that the employee kicked a female employee among two male and female employees riding the hoist, it is determined that there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract in this case.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether an expectation of renewal is recognized:
The employer and the employee had already renewed the fixed-term employment contract four times on identical terms, and the employer had stated that “the worksite is scheduled to be completed around 2027, and hoist operation will be necessary until completion.” Accordingly, it is deemed that, as an employee whose duty was hoist operation, the employee had sufficient grounds to form an expectation that the employment contract would be renewed for as long as the worksite remained in operation.
B. Whether there existed reasonable grounds for refusal to renew:
Since CCTV installed inside the hoist confirmed that the employee kicked a female employee among two male and female employees riding the hoist, it is determined that there were reasonable grounds for the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract in this case. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Formation of Employment Offer (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, refusal to renew (hoist kicking incident), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Employee Status (Executive Director of Overseas Parent Company),” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to refusal to renew (hoist kicking incident) can be viewed together at the “List of Decisions Related to Refusal to Renew (Hoist Kicking Incident).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
