Corporate trends / Performance record
“Reasonableness of Refusal to Renew (Overseas Mission Performance Rating: 52 Points)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 208)
- Date2026/02/16 04:13
- Read 201
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “reasonableness of refusal to renew (overseas mission performance rating: 52 points).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2025BuHae3876 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 11, 2025 · Outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: (a)
---
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employer’s refusal to renew the fixed-term employee’s employment contract was justified, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. Labor Law Firm Law& frequently advises on cases like this involving repeatedly renewed fixed-term contracts at overseas missions and foreign offices, where the employee’s expectation of contract renewal and the highly sensitive issue of refusal to renew—no less contentious than redundancy dismissals—are at stake.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee was a fixed-term staff member employed under a one-year contract at an overseas mission. When the contract expired, it was not renewed, and the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The employer, based on the results of a performance evaluation conducted under its internal regulations and after deliberation by the personnel committee, decided not to renew the contract upon its expiry. The employee argued that this was retaliation for a grievance he had filed.
Ⅱ. Issue Summary
The issue in this case is:
“Where a fixed-term employee has a recognized expectation of contract renewal, whether refusal to renew based on a low performance evaluation score and a personnel committee decision constitutes an objective and reasonable ground sufficient for the refusal not to amount to unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee had an expectation of contract renewal. It noted that the employer’s relevant regulations provided that “after the expiry of the one-year contract term, the question of renewal shall be decided by convening a personnel committee in consideration of the performance evaluation results,” and that, in the case of the employee’s predecessor, the employment contract had been renewed three times and continuous service maintained despite changes in the head of mission.
As to the dismissal in this case, the panel took into account that the employee received a score of 52 out of 100 on the performance evaluation conducted under the relevant regulations, that the employer convened a personnel committee based on this evaluation result and decided not to renew the contract after its expiry, and that there was no evidentiary material supporting the employee’s allegation that the refusal to renew was “retaliation for filing a grievance.” On the contrary, the detailed written statements of numerous employees were consistent with the employer’s assertions and were considered highly credible. Considering these factors as a whole, the panel held that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew the contract and that it did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even fixed-term employees should bear in mind that, as in this case, where regulations and established practice show that contracts have been renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions, an expectation of renewal may be recognized. However, even if such an expectation exists, if the performance evaluation results are significantly low or there are job performance issues supported by colleagues’ statements, the Labor Relations Commission may find that there are reasonable grounds for refusal to renew. In such circumstances, it is difficult to obtain relief based solely on the assertion that “I expected the contract to continue.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly stipulate in the regulations the criteria and procedures for renewal, to actually conduct performance evaluations and operate the personnel committee in accordance with those criteria, and to retain objective records such as evaluation scores, minutes of meetings, and written statements. In particular, employers should be able to prove that the decision on renewal was based on job competence and work attitude, and was unrelated to grievance filings, union activities, etc. This significantly increases the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the reasonableness of the refusal to renew.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the employee’s expectation of contract renewal is recognized
(1) The relevant regulations provide that, after the expiry of the one-year contract term, the question of renewal shall be decided by convening a personnel committee in consideration of the performance evaluation results;
(2) As to the predecessor’s renewal history, it was confirmed that, despite changes in the head of mission, the employment contract did not terminate and was renewed three times, allowing continuous service.
In light of the above, the expectation of contract renewal is recognized.
b. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
(1) The employee received a total score of 52 out of 100 on the performance evaluation conducted under the relevant regulations;
(2) The employer, based on the performance evaluation results, convened a personnel committee and decided not to renew the employee’s contract after the expiry of the contract term;
(3) The employee claimed that the employer refused to renew the contract because he had filed a grievance, but no supporting evidence was found, and the written statements prepared by numerous employees were detailed and supported the employer’s assertions, thus being considered highly credible.
Considering these factors as a whole, it was determined that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew the employment contract.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Whether the employee’s expectation of contract renewal is recognized
(1) The relevant regulations provide that, after the expiry of the one-year contract term, the question of renewal shall be decided by convening a personnel committee in consideration of the performance evaluation results;
(2) As to the predecessor’s renewal history, it was confirmed that, despite changes in the head of mission, the employment contract did not terminate and was renewed three times, allowing continuous service.
In light of the above, the expectation of contract renewal is recognized.
b. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
(1) The employee received a total score of 52 out of 100 on the performance evaluation conducted under the relevant regulations;
(2) The employer, based on the performance evaluation results, convened a personnel committee and decided not to renew the employee’s contract after the expiry of the contract term;
(3) The employee claimed that the employer refused to renew the contract because he had filed a grievance, but no supporting evidence was found, and the written statements prepared by numerous employees were detailed and supported the employer’s assertions, thus being considered highly credible.
Considering these factors as a whole, it was determined that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew the employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Failure to Meet Performance Evaluation Standards)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Disciplinary Action (Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of refusal to renew (overseas mission performance rating: 52 points), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, performance evaluation and 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Disciplinary Action (Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “reasonableness of refusal to renew (overseas mission performance rating: 52 points)” can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Reasonableness of Refusal to Renew (Overseas Mission Performance Rating: 52 Points).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “reasonableness of refusal to renew (overseas mission performance rating: 52 points).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, Case No. 2025BuHae3876 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
December 11, 2025 · Outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: (a)
---
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employer’s refusal to renew the fixed-term employee’s employment contract was justified, and ultimately ruled in favor of the employer. Labor Law Firm Law& frequently advises on cases like this involving repeatedly renewed fixed-term contracts at overseas missions and foreign offices, where the employee’s expectation of contract renewal and the highly sensitive issue of refusal to renew—no less contentious than redundancy dismissals—are at stake.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee was a fixed-term staff member employed under a one-year contract at an overseas mission. When the contract expired, it was not renewed, and the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The employer, based on the results of a performance evaluation conducted under its internal regulations and after deliberation by the personnel committee, decided not to renew the contract upon its expiry. The employee argued that this was retaliation for a grievance he had filed.
Ⅱ. Issue Summary
The issue in this case is:
“Where a fixed-term employee has a recognized expectation of contract renewal, whether refusal to renew based on a low performance evaluation score and a personnel committee decision constitutes an objective and reasonable ground sufficient for the refusal not to amount to unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employee had an expectation of contract renewal. It noted that the employer’s relevant regulations provided that “after the expiry of the one-year contract term, the question of renewal shall be decided by convening a personnel committee in consideration of the performance evaluation results,” and that, in the case of the employee’s predecessor, the employment contract had been renewed three times and continuous service maintained despite changes in the head of mission.
As to the dismissal in this case, the panel took into account that the employee received a score of 52 out of 100 on the performance evaluation conducted under the relevant regulations, that the employer convened a personnel committee based on this evaluation result and decided not to renew the contract after its expiry, and that there was no evidentiary material supporting the employee’s allegation that the refusal to renew was “retaliation for filing a grievance.” On the contrary, the detailed written statements of numerous employees were consistent with the employer’s assertions and were considered highly credible. Considering these factors as a whole, the panel held that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew the contract and that it did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even fixed-term employees should bear in mind that, as in this case, where regulations and established practice show that contracts have been renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions, an expectation of renewal may be recognized. However, even if such an expectation exists, if the performance evaluation results are significantly low or there are job performance issues supported by colleagues’ statements, the Labor Relations Commission may find that there are reasonable grounds for refusal to renew. In such circumstances, it is difficult to obtain relief based solely on the assertion that “I expected the contract to continue.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to clearly stipulate in the regulations the criteria and procedures for renewal, to actually conduct performance evaluations and operate the personnel committee in accordance with those criteria, and to retain objective records such as evaluation scores, minutes of meetings, and written statements. In particular, employers should be able to prove that the decision on renewal was based on job competence and work attitude, and was unrelated to grievance filings, union activities, etc. This significantly increases the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission will recognize the reasonableness of the refusal to renew.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. Whether the employee’s expectation of contract renewal is recognized
(1) The relevant regulations provide that, after the expiry of the one-year contract term, the question of renewal shall be decided by convening a personnel committee in consideration of the performance evaluation results;
(2) As to the predecessor’s renewal history, it was confirmed that, despite changes in the head of mission, the employment contract did not terminate and was renewed three times, allowing continuous service.
In light of the above, the expectation of contract renewal is recognized.
b. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
(1) The employee received a total score of 52 out of 100 on the performance evaluation conducted under the relevant regulations;
(2) The employer, based on the performance evaluation results, convened a personnel committee and decided not to renew the employee’s contract after the expiry of the contract term;
(3) The employee claimed that the employer refused to renew the contract because he had filed a grievance, but no supporting evidence was found, and the written statements prepared by numerous employees were detailed and supported the employer’s assertions, thus being considered highly credible.
Considering these factors as a whole, it was determined that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew the employment contract.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
a. Whether the employee’s expectation of contract renewal is recognized
(1) The relevant regulations provide that, after the expiry of the one-year contract term, the question of renewal shall be decided by convening a personnel committee in consideration of the performance evaluation results;
(2) As to the predecessor’s renewal history, it was confirmed that, despite changes in the head of mission, the employment contract did not terminate and was renewed three times, allowing continuous service.
In light of the above, the expectation of contract renewal is recognized.
b. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
(1) The employee received a total score of 52 out of 100 on the performance evaluation conducted under the relevant regulations;
(2) The employer, based on the performance evaluation results, convened a personnel committee and decided not to renew the employee’s contract after the expiry of the contract term;
(3) The employee claimed that the employer refused to renew the contract because he had filed a grievance, but no supporting evidence was found, and the written statements prepared by numerous employees were detailed and supported the employer’s assertions, thus being considered highly credible.
Considering these factors as a whole, it was determined that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew the employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Renewal (Failure to Meet Performance Evaluation Standards)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Disciplinary Action (Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made Over the Phone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of refusal to renew (overseas mission performance rating: 52 points), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, performance evaluation and 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.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Justifiability of Disciplinary Action (Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to “reasonableness of refusal to renew (overseas mission performance rating: 52 points)” can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Related to Reasonableness of Refusal to Renew (Overseas Mission Performance Rating: 52 Points).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
