Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Employment Succession and Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Security Services)” (Unfair Dismissal 291)
- Date2026/03/17 04:08
- Read 208
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “employment succession and legitimate expectation of renewal (apartment security services).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9623 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issues in summary: (i) The employer entered into a service contract for apartment security services through a bidding process, but the contract contained no clause on employment succession; (ii) with the exception of one person, most workers’ length of service was relatively short, generally around one to two years; (iii) the worker stated at the hearing that there was no evidentiary material to support the assertion of a legitimate expectation of renewal; (iv) the employer checked the actual work status of the existing security guards, received their resumes, and then determined hiring and headcount based on interview results; …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation where, upon a change of the apartment security service provider, existing security guards were not hired by the new contractor, raising the question of whether this constituted unfair dismissal. The worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal on the ground that he had an expectation of employment succession or renewal of his employment contract. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where a new apartment security service contract has been concluded, can it be deemed that the existing security guards had an expectation of employment succession or a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts such that a ‘dismissal’ can be said to exist?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer entered into a service contract for apartment security services with the apartment through a bidding process, but that contract contained no provision whatsoever on employment succession; that, with the exception of one person, the existing security guards’ length of service was generally around one to two years and thus relatively short, so that no practice premised on long‑term continuous employment could be identified; and that the worker himself stated at the hearing that there was no separate evidentiary material to support his assertion of a legitimate expectation of renewal.
The panel further found that the employer separately reviewed the actual work status of the existing security guards, received their resumes, and determined whether and how many to hire through interviews; and that, in this process, the employer had them prepare employment support request forms and otherwise carried out a “new recruitment procedure.”
In light of the above, the panel held that it was difficult to find that any practice or express/implied promise of employment succession had been formed in favor of the workers, and that no legitimate expectation of renewal could be recognized. Accordingly, the employer’s “decision not to hire” was merely a refusal to engage in new hiring, not the termination or dismissal of an existing employment contract. As a result, the panel found that no dismissal existed in this case and did not uphold the worker’s unfair dismissal claim.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, in outsourced jobs such as apartment security, cleaning, and facility management, even when the contractor changes, it is difficult to have employment succession or a legitimate expectation of renewal recognized by the Labor Relations Commission unless such claims are supported by the service contract, work rules, HR guidelines, or past practices of employment succession. In particular, a vague expectation such as “I continued working before, so I will naturally be hired again this time” is not sufficient to assert unfair dismissal. It is important to secure objective materials in advance, such as an established practice of employment succession, written promises, or specific statements and conduct by HR personnel.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the perspective of the employer or management body, when changing contractors for security, cleaning, and similar services, it is helpful for dispute prevention to clearly stipulate in the service contract whether employment succession will occur and on what criteria, and to operate consistently in practice with those provisions. If there is no plan to succeed employment, the employer should clearly notify existing workers in writing and through explanations that “the previous employment contracts will end and new hires will be selected through a new recruitment process,” and should operate interview, evaluation, and other hiring criteria objectively so as to avoid any appearance of discrimination or retaliation.
To prevail in unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal disputes of this type, it is advisable to fully understand the legal principles applied by the Labor Relations Commission in assessing practices of employment succession and legitimate expectations of renewal, and to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to proactively organize service contracts, HR operations, and recruitment procedures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account that: (i) the employer entered into a service contract for apartment security services through a bidding process, but the contract contained no clause on employment succession; (ii) with the exception of one person, most workers’ length of service was relatively short, generally around one to two years; (iii) the worker stated at the hearing that there was no evidentiary material to support the assertion of a legitimate expectation of renewal; (iv) the employer checked the actual work status of the existing security guards, received their resumes, and determined the number of hires based on interview results; and (v) the employer had the workers prepare employment support request forms in the course of conducting interviews with them, the Commission determined that no expectation right to employment succession could be recognized for the workers and therefore no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account that: (i) the employer entered into a service contract for apartment security services through a bidding process, but the contract contained no clause on employment succession; (ii) with the exception of one person, most workers’ length of service was relatively short, generally around one to two years; (iii) the worker stated at the hearing that there was no evidentiary material to support the assertion of a legitimate expectation of renewal; (iv) the employer checked the actual work status of the existing security guards, received their resumes, and determined the number of hires based on interview results; and (v) the employer had the workers prepare employment support request forms in the course of conducting interviews with them, the Commission determined that no expectation right to employment succession could be recognized for the workers and therefore no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employment succession and legitimate expectation of renewal (apartment security services), others, 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Transfer Order (Refusal of Operating Room Rotation System)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employment succession and legitimate expectation of renewal (apartment security services) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Employment Succession and Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Security Services).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “employment succession and legitimate expectation of renewal (apartment security services).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9623 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issues in summary: (i) The employer entered into a service contract for apartment security services through a bidding process, but the contract contained no clause on employment succession; (ii) with the exception of one person, most workers’ length of service was relatively short, generally around one to two years; (iii) the worker stated at the hearing that there was no evidentiary material to support the assertion of a legitimate expectation of renewal; (iv) the employer checked the actual work status of the existing security guards, received their resumes, and then determined hiring and headcount based on interview results; …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a situation where, upon a change of the apartment security service provider, existing security guards were not hired by the new contractor, raising the question of whether this constituted unfair dismissal. The worker filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal on the ground that he had an expectation of employment succession or renewal of his employment contract. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In a situation where a new apartment security service contract has been concluded, can it be deemed that the existing security guards had an expectation of employment succession or a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts such that a ‘dismissal’ can be said to exist?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case noted that the employer entered into a service contract for apartment security services with the apartment through a bidding process, but that contract contained no provision whatsoever on employment succession; that, with the exception of one person, the existing security guards’ length of service was generally around one to two years and thus relatively short, so that no practice premised on long‑term continuous employment could be identified; and that the worker himself stated at the hearing that there was no separate evidentiary material to support his assertion of a legitimate expectation of renewal.
The panel further found that the employer separately reviewed the actual work status of the existing security guards, received their resumes, and determined whether and how many to hire through interviews; and that, in this process, the employer had them prepare employment support request forms and otherwise carried out a “new recruitment procedure.”
In light of the above, the panel held that it was difficult to find that any practice or express/implied promise of employment succession had been formed in favor of the workers, and that no legitimate expectation of renewal could be recognized. Accordingly, the employer’s “decision not to hire” was merely a refusal to engage in new hiring, not the termination or dismissal of an existing employment contract. As a result, the panel found that no dismissal existed in this case and did not uphold the worker’s unfair dismissal claim.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
From the worker’s perspective, in outsourced jobs such as apartment security, cleaning, and facility management, even when the contractor changes, it is difficult to have employment succession or a legitimate expectation of renewal recognized by the Labor Relations Commission unless such claims are supported by the service contract, work rules, HR guidelines, or past practices of employment succession. In particular, a vague expectation such as “I continued working before, so I will naturally be hired again this time” is not sufficient to assert unfair dismissal. It is important to secure objective materials in advance, such as an established practice of employment succession, written promises, or specific statements and conduct by HR personnel.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the perspective of the employer or management body, when changing contractors for security, cleaning, and similar services, it is helpful for dispute prevention to clearly stipulate in the service contract whether employment succession will occur and on what criteria, and to operate consistently in practice with those provisions. If there is no plan to succeed employment, the employer should clearly notify existing workers in writing and through explanations that “the previous employment contracts will end and new hires will be selected through a new recruitment process,” and should operate interview, evaluation, and other hiring criteria objectively so as to avoid any appearance of discrimination or retaliation.
To prevail in unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissal disputes of this type, it is advisable to fully understand the legal principles applied by the Labor Relations Commission in assessing practices of employment succession and legitimate expectations of renewal, and to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to proactively organize service contracts, HR operations, and recruitment procedures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account that: (i) the employer entered into a service contract for apartment security services through a bidding process, but the contract contained no clause on employment succession; (ii) with the exception of one person, most workers’ length of service was relatively short, generally around one to two years; (iii) the worker stated at the hearing that there was no evidentiary material to support the assertion of a legitimate expectation of renewal; (iv) the employer checked the actual work status of the existing security guards, received their resumes, and determined the number of hires based on interview results; and (v) the employer had the workers prepare employment support request forms in the course of conducting interviews with them, the Commission determined that no expectation right to employment succession could be recognized for the workers and therefore no dismissal existed.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account that: (i) the employer entered into a service contract for apartment security services through a bidding process, but the contract contained no clause on employment succession; (ii) with the exception of one person, most workers’ length of service was relatively short, generally around one to two years; (iii) the worker stated at the hearing that there was no evidentiary material to support the assertion of a legitimate expectation of renewal; (iv) the employer checked the actual work status of the existing security guards, received their resumes, and determined the number of hires based on interview results; and (v) the employer had the workers prepare employment support request forms in the course of conducting interviews with them, the Commission determined that no expectation right to employment succession could be recognized for the workers and therefore no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employment succession and legitimate expectation of renewal (apartment security services), others, 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Transfer Order (Refusal of Operating Room Rotation System)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to employment succession and legitimate expectation of renewal (apartment security services) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Employment Succession and Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Apartment Security Services).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
