Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Non-Renewal Evaluation (Lowest Score Among Fixed-Term Employees)” (Unfair Dismissal 283)
- Date2026/03/14 04:13
- Read 246
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-renewal evaluation (lowest score among fixed-term employees).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9131 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal (2025.10.22.) exists
The notice given to the worker on 22 October 2025 is merely prior notice that the employment relationship would terminate on 28 October 2025, and cannot be regarded as notice of dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
This post reviews an application for remedy for unfair dismissal handled by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, focusing on how the Commission assesses a fixed-term employee’s legitimate expectation of contract renewal and the reasonableness of a non-renewal decision. Based on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, this article is organized for those considering unfair dismissal claims and the labor commission remedy procedure. Readers facing similar issues involving collective redundancies or contract expiry may find it useful.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The worker was a fixed-term employee who had been working under a one-year fixed-term employment contract with the employer. As the contract neared expiry, the employer notified the worker that the employment relationship would terminate as of 28 October 2025. The worker claimed this constituted an unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Commission first examined whether the notice dated 22 October 2025 constituted notice of dismissal or merely prior notice of contract expiry. It then sequentially reviewed: (i) whether, in light of the employer’s past practice, the worker had acquired a legitimate expectation of renewal, and (ii) finally, whether there was an objectively reasonable ground for the non-renewal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: (i) whether the notice of termination given shortly before the expiry of the fixed term constitutes notice of dismissal amounting to unfair dismissal, and (ii) whether, in the case of a fixed-term employee with a legitimate expectation of renewal, the employer’s refusal to renew the contract based on performance evaluation results satisfies the socially accepted standard of reasonableness.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the notice dated 22 October 2025 was merely prior notice that the employment relationship would terminate on 28 October 2025; that the employer had a recognized practice of converting most of several one-year fixed-term employees to regular positions or renewing their contracts, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation of renewal for the worker; and that the decision on whether to renew the worker’s contract was made through an evaluation process consisting of four items—performance evaluation, department recommendation, interview, and training—where the worker’s average score was 76.9 points, the lowest among those evaluated, and that, absent special circumstances, the employer enjoys broad discretion in performance evaluations.
On this basis, the Commission held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case; that although the worker’s legitimate expectation of renewal was recognized, the non-renewal itself was based on reasonable grounds and therefore could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even fixed-term employees should be aware that a legitimate expectation of renewal may be recognized where the company has a practice of converting most comparable employees to regular status or renewing their contracts. However, even if such an expectation is recognized, where a lawful HR evaluation conducted on the basis of multiple evaluation items objectively yields low results, a non-renewal decision based on those results may be regarded by the Labor Relations Commission as having reasonable grounds.
To prevent similar disputes, it is important to check your own performance evaluation results and criteria in advance, and, if there were any inaccuracies or discriminatory elements in the evaluation process, to systematically collect and organize relevant materials and circumstances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, if there is a practice of repeatedly converting fixed-term employees to regular status or renewing their contracts, this practice itself can be a key basis for recognizing a legitimate expectation of renewal, and HR systems should be designed with this in mind. As in this case, if specific evaluation items and procedures—such as performance evaluation, department recommendation, interview, and training—are established in advance, and scores and rankings are clearly recorded in accordance with those criteria, this will greatly assist in proving the reasonableness of a non-renewal decision.
In addition, where renewal is refused due to low evaluation results, employers should document the evaluation content and the basis for the scoring so that these can be explained to the worker, and should apply the same criteria consistently to all subjects to avoid any suspicion that a particular individual was singled out.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal (2025.10.22.) exists
The notice given to the worker on 22 October 2025 is merely prior notice that the employment relationship would terminate on 28 October 2025, and cannot be regarded as notice of dismissal.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal exists
The employer is recognized as having converted most of several one-year fixed-term employees to regular positions or renewed their contracts upon expiry of the contract term; therefore, the worker also had a legitimate expectation of renewal.
C. Whether there is a reasonable ground for non-renewal
To determine whether to renew the worker’s contract, the employer evaluated four items: performance evaluation, department recommendation, interview, and training. The worker’s average score was 76.9 points, the lowest among those evaluated. Given that, absent special circumstances, the employer’s discretion in performance evaluations must be regarded as quite broad, the non-renewal is recognized as having a reasonable ground.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal (2025.10.22.) exists
The notice given to the worker on 22 October 2025 is merely prior notice that the employment relationship would terminate on 28 October 2025, and cannot be regarded as notice of dismissal.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal exists
The employer is recognized as having converted most of several one-year fixed-term employees to regular positions or renewed their contracts upon expiry of the contract term; therefore, the worker also had a legitimate expectation of renewal.
C. Whether there is a reasonable ground for non-renewal
To determine whether to renew the worker’s contract, the employer evaluated four items: performance evaluation, department recommendation, interview, and training. The worker’s average score was 76.9 points, the lowest among those evaluated. Given that, absent special circumstances, the employer’s discretion in performance evaluations must be regarded as quite broad, the non-renewal is recognized as having a reasonable ground. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Call Around College Entrance Exam Date)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-renewal evaluation (lowest score among fixed-term employees), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, HR 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 post is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous post, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Call Around College Entrance Exam Date)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to non-renewal evaluation (lowest score among fixed-term employees) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Non-Renewal Evaluation (Lowest Score Among Fixed-Term Employees).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-renewal evaluation (lowest score among fixed-term employees).”
Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9131 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.01.13 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal (2025.10.22.) exists
The notice given to the worker on 22 October 2025 is merely prior notice that the employment relationship would terminate on 28 October 2025, and cannot be regarded as notice of dismissal.
1. Legal Implications
This post reviews an application for remedy for unfair dismissal handled by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission, focusing on how the Commission assesses a fixed-term employee’s legitimate expectation of contract renewal and the reasonableness of a non-renewal decision. Based on the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, this article is organized for those considering unfair dismissal claims and the labor commission remedy procedure. Readers facing similar issues involving collective redundancies or contract expiry may find it useful.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The worker was a fixed-term employee who had been working under a one-year fixed-term employment contract with the employer. As the contract neared expiry, the employer notified the worker that the employment relationship would terminate as of 28 October 2025. The worker claimed this constituted an unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission.
The Commission first examined whether the notice dated 22 October 2025 constituted notice of dismissal or merely prior notice of contract expiry. It then sequentially reviewed: (i) whether, in light of the employer’s past practice, the worker had acquired a legitimate expectation of renewal, and (ii) finally, whether there was an objectively reasonable ground for the non-renewal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: (i) whether the notice of termination given shortly before the expiry of the fixed term constitutes notice of dismissal amounting to unfair dismissal, and (ii) whether, in the case of a fixed-term employee with a legitimate expectation of renewal, the employer’s refusal to renew the contract based on performance evaluation results satisfies the socially accepted standard of reasonableness.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the notice dated 22 October 2025 was merely prior notice that the employment relationship would terminate on 28 October 2025; that the employer had a recognized practice of converting most of several one-year fixed-term employees to regular positions or renewing their contracts, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation of renewal for the worker; and that the decision on whether to renew the worker’s contract was made through an evaluation process consisting of four items—performance evaluation, department recommendation, interview, and training—where the worker’s average score was 76.9 points, the lowest among those evaluated, and that, absent special circumstances, the employer enjoys broad discretion in performance evaluations.
On this basis, the Commission held that no dismissal disposition existed in this case; that although the worker’s legitimate expectation of renewal was recognized, the non-renewal itself was based on reasonable grounds and therefore could not be deemed unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even fixed-term employees should be aware that a legitimate expectation of renewal may be recognized where the company has a practice of converting most comparable employees to regular status or renewing their contracts. However, even if such an expectation is recognized, where a lawful HR evaluation conducted on the basis of multiple evaluation items objectively yields low results, a non-renewal decision based on those results may be regarded by the Labor Relations Commission as having reasonable grounds.
To prevent similar disputes, it is important to check your own performance evaluation results and criteria in advance, and, if there were any inaccuracies or discriminatory elements in the evaluation process, to systematically collect and organize relevant materials and circumstances.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, if there is a practice of repeatedly converting fixed-term employees to regular status or renewing their contracts, this practice itself can be a key basis for recognizing a legitimate expectation of renewal, and HR systems should be designed with this in mind. As in this case, if specific evaluation items and procedures—such as performance evaluation, department recommendation, interview, and training—are established in advance, and scores and rankings are clearly recorded in accordance with those criteria, this will greatly assist in proving the reasonableness of a non-renewal decision.
In addition, where renewal is refused due to low evaluation results, employers should document the evaluation content and the basis for the scoring so that these can be explained to the worker, and should apply the same criteria consistently to all subjects to avoid any suspicion that a particular individual was singled out.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal (2025.10.22.) exists
The notice given to the worker on 22 October 2025 is merely prior notice that the employment relationship would terminate on 28 October 2025, and cannot be regarded as notice of dismissal.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal exists
The employer is recognized as having converted most of several one-year fixed-term employees to regular positions or renewed their contracts upon expiry of the contract term; therefore, the worker also had a legitimate expectation of renewal.
C. Whether there is a reasonable ground for non-renewal
To determine whether to renew the worker’s contract, the employer evaluated four items: performance evaluation, department recommendation, interview, and training. The worker’s average score was 76.9 points, the lowest among those evaluated. Given that, absent special circumstances, the employer’s discretion in performance evaluations must be regarded as quite broad, the non-renewal is recognized as having a reasonable ground.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether a dismissal (2025.10.22.) exists
The notice given to the worker on 22 October 2025 is merely prior notice that the employment relationship would terminate on 28 October 2025, and cannot be regarded as notice of dismissal.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal exists
The employer is recognized as having converted most of several one-year fixed-term employees to regular positions or renewed their contracts upon expiry of the contract term; therefore, the worker also had a legitimate expectation of renewal.
C. Whether there is a reasonable ground for non-renewal
To determine whether to renew the worker’s contract, the employer evaluated four items: performance evaluation, department recommendation, interview, and training. The worker’s average score was 76.9 points, the lowest among those evaluated. Given that, absent special circumstances, the employer’s discretion in performance evaluations must be regarded as quite broad, the non-renewal is recognized as having a reasonable ground. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Call Around College Entrance Exam Date)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-renewal evaluation (lowest score among fixed-term employees), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, HR 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 post is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ The previous post, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Existence of Dismissal (Telephone Call Around College Entrance Exam Date)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to non-renewal evaluation (lowest score among fixed-term employees) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Non-Renewal Evaluation (Lowest Score Among Fixed-Term Employees).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
