Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract (Short-Term Fixed-Term)” (Unfair Dismissal 195)
- Date2026/02/11 04:09
- Read 248
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expiry of fixed-term contract (short-term fixed-term).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9161 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.15 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: The employee in 2025 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal arose when an employee who had entered into a short-term fixed-term employment contract claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission around the time of contract expiry. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the contents of the employment contract and the course of the parties’ communications to determine whether this case concerned unfair dismissal or a lawful termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the fixed term. The case structure is similar to the typical type of dispute over termination of fixed-term employment contracts that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently handles in Labor Relations Commission proceedings.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the fixed-term employment contract specified in the written employment contract ended in accordance with the scheduled expiry date, or whether the employer in substance dismissed the employee, and furthermore, whether the employee can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the contract.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employment contract entered into by the parties expressly set the employment period as 18 September 2025 to 17 October 2025; that the contract contained a clause stating that “upon expiry of the contract period, the employment relationship shall automatically terminate, and any extension shall only be possible by mutual agreement”; that the employee, being aware that the contract was coming to an end, had a specific discussion with the employer on 15 October 2025 regarding expiry of the contract period and settlement of unused annual leave; and that it was difficult to find that the employer, by any separate words or conduct, guaranteed renewal of the contract or created a legitimate expectation of renewal.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and that the employment relationship lawfully terminated on 18 October 2025 due to expiry of the contract period.
With respect to fixed-term employment contracts, the Labor Relations Commission, based on Supreme Court precedent, in principle applies the legal doctrine that “when the contract period ends, the employment relationship automatically terminates without any separate dismissal measure,” and only exceptionally recognizes an employment contract without a fixed term or an expectation of renewal. In this case, there was only a single short-term contract, and there was no practice of repeated renewals, no promise guaranteeing renewal, and no public-interest or ongoing business structure. Accordingly, the Commission treated expiry of the contract period not as a mere formality but as a substantive ground for termination, and rejected the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, there may be an expectation that even a “fixed-term employment contract” can, in practice, be protected as if it were regular employment. However, case law and this Labor Relations Commission decision reconfirm that where the employment contract clearly specifies the term and includes an automatic-expiry clause, and there is no repeated renewal, no established renewal practice, and no words or conduct guaranteeing renewal, expiry of the contract period is, in principle, not unfair dismissal.
Therefore, before signing the contract, it is important to clarify in writing the contract period, whether renewal is possible, and the possibility of conversion to regular employment. If the employer has promised renewal or implied conversion to regular employment, you should, where possible, preserve evidence such as emails or messenger records.
In addition, when you receive notice of contract expiry, rather than simply viewing it as having been “dismissed,” you should first examine whether there are circumstances that could support recognition of an expectation of renewal, such as repeated renewals, a practice of conversion to regular employment, a public-interest or ongoing business, or the existence of renewal criteria and procedures. If necessary, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to assess the prospects of success for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when hiring fixed-term employees, it is fundamental to clearly state in the employment contract the contract period, the automatic-expiry clause, and that renewal is only possible “by mutual agreement of the parties.” In addition, when the contract period is coming to an end, as in this case, the employer should, prior to the expiry date, explain the fact of contract expiry and transparently guide the employee regarding matters incidental to termination, such as settlement of remaining annual leave, so as to manage communications and prevent the employee from misunderstanding the situation as a “dismissal.”
Furthermore, if, in the course of managing fixed-term personnel, the employer carelessly and repeatedly uses expressions such as “let’s keep working together” or “we usually renew everyone,” or in substance repeatedly renews contracts over a long period while maintaining only the form of a fixed-term contract, the courts and the Labor Relations Commission may recognize an expectation of renewal or, in effect, an employment contract without a fixed term. Accordingly, as part of HR strategy, employers should ensure that internal rules and actual practice are consistently aligned with respect to criteria for using fixed-term employees, conditions for renewal, and policies on conversion to regular employment.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claims to have been unfairly dismissed on 15 October 2025. However, considering that: (1) the employment contract entered into by the parties specified the contract period as 18 September 2025 to 17 October 2025; (2) the contract contained a clause stating that “the employment relationship shall automatically terminate upon expiry of the period, and the contract period may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties”; (3) while both parties were aware that the employee’s contract was coming to an end, on 15 October 2025 the employer spoke to the employee not about continued employment but about termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the contract period, and they also discussed settlement of remaining unused annual leave; and (4) it is difficult to conclude that the employer created a legitimate expectation of contract renewal for the employee; it must be viewed that, following execution of the employment contract, the employment relationship between the parties lawfully terminated on 18 October 2025 due to expiry of the contract period, and that no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee claims to have been unfairly dismissed on 15 October 2025. However, considering that: (1) the employment contract entered into by the parties specified the contract period as 18 September 2025 to 17 October 2025; (2) the contract contained a clause stating that “the employment relationship shall automatically terminate upon expiry of the period, and the contract period may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties”; (3) while both parties were aware that the employee’s contract was coming to an end, on 15 October 2025 the employer spoke to the employee not about continued employment but about termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the contract period, and they also discussed settlement of remaining unused annual leave; and (4) it is difficult to conclude that the employer created a legitimate expectation of contract renewal for the employee; it must be viewed that, following execution of the employment contract, the employment relationship between the parties lawfully terminated on 18 October 2025 due to expiry of the contract period, and that no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Two Failures to Appear)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expiry of fixed-term contract (short-term fixed-term), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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 ‘Dismissal of Application (Two Failures to Appear)’,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to expiry of fixed-term contract (short-term fixed-term) at “List of Decisions Related to Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract (Short-Term Fixed-Term).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expiry of fixed-term contract (short-term fixed-term).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9161 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.15 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: The employee in 2025 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal arose when an employee who had entered into a short-term fixed-term employment contract claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission around the time of contract expiry. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the contents of the employment contract and the course of the parties’ communications to determine whether this case concerned unfair dismissal or a lawful termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the fixed term. The case structure is similar to the typical type of dispute over termination of fixed-term employment contracts that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently handles in Labor Relations Commission proceedings.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “the fixed-term employment contract specified in the written employment contract ended in accordance with the scheduled expiry date, or whether the employer in substance dismissed the employee, and furthermore, whether the employee can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the contract.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employment contract entered into by the parties expressly set the employment period as 18 September 2025 to 17 October 2025; that the contract contained a clause stating that “upon expiry of the contract period, the employment relationship shall automatically terminate, and any extension shall only be possible by mutual agreement”; that the employee, being aware that the contract was coming to an end, had a specific discussion with the employer on 15 October 2025 regarding expiry of the contract period and settlement of unused annual leave; and that it was difficult to find that the employer, by any separate words or conduct, guaranteed renewal of the contract or created a legitimate expectation of renewal.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case, and that the employment relationship lawfully terminated on 18 October 2025 due to expiry of the contract period.
With respect to fixed-term employment contracts, the Labor Relations Commission, based on Supreme Court precedent, in principle applies the legal doctrine that “when the contract period ends, the employment relationship automatically terminates without any separate dismissal measure,” and only exceptionally recognizes an employment contract without a fixed term or an expectation of renewal. In this case, there was only a single short-term contract, and there was no practice of repeated renewals, no promise guaranteeing renewal, and no public-interest or ongoing business structure. Accordingly, the Commission treated expiry of the contract period not as a mere formality but as a substantive ground for termination, and rejected the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, there may be an expectation that even a “fixed-term employment contract” can, in practice, be protected as if it were regular employment. However, case law and this Labor Relations Commission decision reconfirm that where the employment contract clearly specifies the term and includes an automatic-expiry clause, and there is no repeated renewal, no established renewal practice, and no words or conduct guaranteeing renewal, expiry of the contract period is, in principle, not unfair dismissal.
Therefore, before signing the contract, it is important to clarify in writing the contract period, whether renewal is possible, and the possibility of conversion to regular employment. If the employer has promised renewal or implied conversion to regular employment, you should, where possible, preserve evidence such as emails or messenger records.
In addition, when you receive notice of contract expiry, rather than simply viewing it as having been “dismissed,” you should first examine whether there are circumstances that could support recognition of an expectation of renewal, such as repeated renewals, a practice of conversion to regular employment, a public-interest or ongoing business, or the existence of renewal criteria and procedures. If necessary, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to assess the prospects of success for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when hiring fixed-term employees, it is fundamental to clearly state in the employment contract the contract period, the automatic-expiry clause, and that renewal is only possible “by mutual agreement of the parties.” In addition, when the contract period is coming to an end, as in this case, the employer should, prior to the expiry date, explain the fact of contract expiry and transparently guide the employee regarding matters incidental to termination, such as settlement of remaining annual leave, so as to manage communications and prevent the employee from misunderstanding the situation as a “dismissal.”
Furthermore, if, in the course of managing fixed-term personnel, the employer carelessly and repeatedly uses expressions such as “let’s keep working together” or “we usually renew everyone,” or in substance repeatedly renews contracts over a long period while maintaining only the form of a fixed-term contract, the courts and the Labor Relations Commission may recognize an expectation of renewal or, in effect, an employment contract without a fixed term. Accordingly, as part of HR strategy, employers should ensure that internal rules and actual practice are consistently aligned with respect to criteria for using fixed-term employees, conditions for renewal, and policies on conversion to regular employment.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claims to have been unfairly dismissed on 15 October 2025. However, considering that: (1) the employment contract entered into by the parties specified the contract period as 18 September 2025 to 17 October 2025; (2) the contract contained a clause stating that “the employment relationship shall automatically terminate upon expiry of the period, and the contract period may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties”; (3) while both parties were aware that the employee’s contract was coming to an end, on 15 October 2025 the employer spoke to the employee not about continued employment but about termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the contract period, and they also discussed settlement of remaining unused annual leave; and (4) it is difficult to conclude that the employer created a legitimate expectation of contract renewal for the employee; it must be viewed that, following execution of the employment contract, the employment relationship between the parties lawfully terminated on 18 October 2025 due to expiry of the contract period, and that no dismissal exists.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee claims to have been unfairly dismissed on 15 October 2025. However, considering that: (1) the employment contract entered into by the parties specified the contract period as 18 September 2025 to 17 October 2025; (2) the contract contained a clause stating that “the employment relationship shall automatically terminate upon expiry of the period, and the contract period may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties”; (3) while both parties were aware that the employee’s contract was coming to an end, on 15 October 2025 the employer spoke to the employee not about continued employment but about termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the contract period, and they also discussed settlement of remaining unused annual leave; and (4) it is difficult to conclude that the employer created a legitimate expectation of contract renewal for the employee; it must be viewed that, following execution of the employment contract, the employment relationship between the parties lawfully terminated on 18 October 2025 due to expiry of the contract period, and that no dismissal exists. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Two Failures to Appear)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Appear at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expiry of fixed-term contract (short-term fixed-term), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, 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 ‘Dismissal of Application (Two Failures to Appear)’,” in a new window.
※ You can view the list of decisions related to expiry of fixed-term contract (short-term fixed-term) at “List of Decisions Related to Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract (Short-Term Fixed-Term).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
