Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to “Expiration of Contract Term (Specified in Short-Term Contract)” (Unfair Dismissal 264)
- Date2026/03/07 04:09
- Read 220
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expiration of contract term (specified in short-term contract).”
Decision body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9040 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.15 · Outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary: The employment contract executed by the parties expressly stated the employment period as “2025. 11. 10. ~ 11. 16.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker who had entered into a short-term fixed-term employment contract filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, viewed the case as one where the employment relationship had ended due to the expiration of the contract term and dismissed the application.
The key issue was how to assess the legal effect of the contract term as stated in the written employment contract when determining whether there was an unfair dismissal. This is a type of case that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently reviews when advising on similar matters.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the employment contract specifies a concrete period (2025.11.10.~11.16.), and the worker merely asserts—without proof—that he or she signed a contract in which the ‘term section was left blank,’ can the termination of the employment relationship be regarded as an unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that: (i) the employment contract executed by the parties clearly specified the employment period as 2025.11.10.~11.16.; (ii) although the worker claimed to have signed a contract in which the term section was left blank, the worker failed to produce any evidence supporting this claim; and (iii) as a dispositive document, the employment contract should, absent special circumstances, be interpreted according to its wording, and the existence of a fixed-term employment contract should be recognized on that basis.
Accordingly, the panel held that the validity of the employment contract itself could not be denied, and that the employment relationship between the parties must be deemed to have automatically terminated upon the expiration of the contract term on 2025.11.16.
Therefore, the panel found that there was, in effect, no “dismissal disposition” in this case, and that the termination of the employment relationship was not a redundancy dismissal or ordinary dismissal but a “termination due to expiration of the contract term.” It thus concluded that the case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Where an employment contract signed by the worker states a contract term, it is very difficult to claim unfair dismissal without concrete evidence sufficient to overturn that wording. If a worker wishes to argue that the term section was blank at the time of signing, or that in reality he or she was hired as an employee with no fixed term, it is important to secure in advance objective materials that can prove such circumstances—for example, evidence of repeated renewals, statements by the employer treating the worker as permanent, or information about the contract types of co-workers.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when hiring fixed-term workers, it is essential to clearly state both the start date and end date in the employment contract, fully explain these terms to the worker, and then obtain signatures and seals. Although the employment relationship terminates upon expiration of the contract term without the need for a separate notice of dismissal, to reduce unnecessary disputes, employers should provide prior notice that “the employment relationship will end upon expiration of the contract term,” and avoid creating practices or ambiguous promises regarding renewal.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employment contract executed by the parties expressly stated the employment period as “2025. 11. 10. ~ 11. 16.” Although the worker claimed to have signed an employment contract in which the contract term section was left blank, the worker failed to prove this. Under these circumstances, the validity of the employment contract between the parties, as a dispositive document, cannot be denied. Accordingly, it is determined that the employment relationship between the parties terminated upon the expiration of the employment contract term on 2025. 11. 16.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employment contract executed by the parties expressly stated the employment period as “2025. 11. 10. ~ 11. 16.” Although the worker claimed to have signed an employment contract in which the contract term section was left blank, the worker failed to prove this. Under these circumstances, the validity of the employment contract between the parties, as a dispositive document, cannot be denied. Accordingly, it is determined that the employment relationship between the parties terminated upon the expiration of the employment contract term on 2025. 11. 16. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expiration of contract term (specified in short-term contract), 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 Relating to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Golf Entertainment·Interior Costs Paid by Third Party)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to expiration of contract term (specified in short-term contract) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Relating to Expiration of Contract Term (Specified in Short-Term Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision body: Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9040 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.15 · Outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary: The employment contract executed by the parties expressly stated the employment period as “2025. 11. 10. ~ 11. 16.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, a worker who had entered into a short-term fixed-term employment contract filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming unfair dismissal. The Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission, however, viewed the case as one where the employment relationship had ended due to the expiration of the contract term and dismissed the application.
The key issue was how to assess the legal effect of the contract term as stated in the written employment contract when determining whether there was an unfair dismissal. This is a type of case that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently reviews when advising on similar matters.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where the employment contract specifies a concrete period (2025.11.10.~11.16.), and the worker merely asserts—without proof—that he or she signed a contract in which the ‘term section was left blank,’ can the termination of the employment relationship be regarded as an unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that: (i) the employment contract executed by the parties clearly specified the employment period as 2025.11.10.~11.16.; (ii) although the worker claimed to have signed a contract in which the term section was left blank, the worker failed to produce any evidence supporting this claim; and (iii) as a dispositive document, the employment contract should, absent special circumstances, be interpreted according to its wording, and the existence of a fixed-term employment contract should be recognized on that basis.
Accordingly, the panel held that the validity of the employment contract itself could not be denied, and that the employment relationship between the parties must be deemed to have automatically terminated upon the expiration of the contract term on 2025.11.16.
Therefore, the panel found that there was, in effect, no “dismissal disposition” in this case, and that the termination of the employment relationship was not a redundancy dismissal or ordinary dismissal but a “termination due to expiration of the contract term.” It thus concluded that the case did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Where an employment contract signed by the worker states a contract term, it is very difficult to claim unfair dismissal without concrete evidence sufficient to overturn that wording. If a worker wishes to argue that the term section was blank at the time of signing, or that in reality he or she was hired as an employee with no fixed term, it is important to secure in advance objective materials that can prove such circumstances—for example, evidence of repeated renewals, statements by the employer treating the worker as permanent, or information about the contract types of co-workers.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when hiring fixed-term workers, it is essential to clearly state both the start date and end date in the employment contract, fully explain these terms to the worker, and then obtain signatures and seals. Although the employment relationship terminates upon expiration of the contract term without the need for a separate notice of dismissal, to reduce unnecessary disputes, employers should provide prior notice that “the employment relationship will end upon expiration of the contract term,” and avoid creating practices or ambiguous promises regarding renewal.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employment contract executed by the parties expressly stated the employment period as “2025. 11. 10. ~ 11. 16.” Although the worker claimed to have signed an employment contract in which the contract term section was left blank, the worker failed to prove this. Under these circumstances, the validity of the employment contract between the parties, as a dispositive document, cannot be denied. Accordingly, it is determined that the employment relationship between the parties terminated upon the expiration of the employment contract term on 2025. 11. 16.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employment contract executed by the parties expressly stated the employment period as “2025. 11. 10. ~ 11. 16.” Although the worker claimed to have signed an employment contract in which the contract term section was left blank, the worker failed to prove this. Under these circumstances, the validity of the employment contract between the parties, as a dispositive document, cannot be denied. Accordingly, it is determined that the employment relationship between the parties terminated upon the expiration of the employment contract term on 2025. 11. 16. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expiration of contract term (specified in short-term contract), 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 Relating to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Golf Entertainment·Interior Costs Paid by Third Party)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to expiration of contract term (specified in short-term contract) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Relating to Expiration of Contract Term (Specified in Short-Term Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
