Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Expiry of Contract Term (Three-Month Fixed-Term Contract)” (Unfair Dismissal 327)
- Date2026/03/29 04:08
- Read 189
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) in a dispute over “expiry of contract term (three‑month fixed-term contract).”
Decision Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025부해9836 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.09 · Result: Application dismissed
Key issues in summary: (i) the written employment contract between the employer and the employee expressly specified a three‑month employment period; (ii) the employee argued that the three months constituted a probationary period for evaluation prior to regular employment, but failed to prove this; (iii) the case appeared to fall under the contractual exception to the application of a probationary period, namely “where the employee is hired with recognition of prior experience”; (iv) the work rules provision that “the contract period for fixed‑term (choktack) employment is one year” applies to employees who continue to work as fixed‑term (choktack) employees after mandatory retirement from the company, and …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that his/her departure upon expiry of a three‑month fixed employment term constituted unfair dismissal. The employer and the employee had executed a written employment contract specifying a three‑month employment period, and the dispute centered on whether this three‑month period was merely a fixed‑term contract or a probationary/training period premised on subsequent regular employment.
The employee asserted that, as a fixed‑term (choktack) employee, he/she expected to work for at least one year, and that the three‑month period was only a probationary period for evaluation. On the other hand, the employer argued that a three‑month fixed‑term employment contract had been concluded from the outset, that the employment relationship naturally ended upon expiry of that term, and that there had been no dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The key issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employment contract expressly specifies a three‑month employment period, that period can be regarded as a probationary/training period premised on subsequent regular employment, or whether it should instead be viewed as the term of a fixed‑term employment contract, such that the employment relationship is deemed to have ended upon expiry of the term.
A further issue was whether the provision in the work rules stating that “the contract period for fixed‑term (choktack) employment is one year” applied to this employee, and, accordingly, whether the termination of the employment relationship after only three months constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel noted that the written employment contract executed by the employer and the employee expressly specified a three‑month employment period; that although the employee claimed that this three‑month period was a probationary period, he/she failed to prove any separate agreement, documentation, or basis in the work rules supporting this; and that the case appeared to fall under the contractual exception to the application of a probationary period, namely “where the employee is hired with recognition of prior experience.”
In light of these factors, the panel held that it was appropriate to regard the contract not as a probationary/training contract as claimed by the employee, but as a three‑month fixed‑term employment contract with a definite term.
The panel further held that the work rules provision stating that “the contract period for fixed‑term (choktack) employment is one year” applies to fixed‑term (choktack) employees who are re‑employed after reaching the mandatory retirement age, and that this employee did not fall within the scope of that provision. Moreover, based on the general legal principles governing fixed‑term employment contracts, where an employment contract is concluded for a fixed period, the employment relationship naturally terminates upon expiry of that period without any need for a separate notice of dismissal. On this basis, the panel found that the case involved termination due to expiry of the contract term, and that no dismissal had occurred.
Accordingly, the “dismissal” in this case was deemed not to exist, and the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed, resulting in a decision in favor of the employer.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where the “employment period” is specifically stated in the employment contract, it is difficult to challenge termination as unfair dismissal based solely on a subjective understanding such as “I thought it was a probationary period” or “I expected conversion to regular employment.” To argue that the period was probationary/training, it is important to secure objective materials showing that it was a “probationary period for evaluation prior to regular employment,” such as provisions in the employment contract or work rules, recruitment announcements, or documents on the operation of evaluation systems.
In addition, in cases of fixed‑term (choktack) or other fixed‑term employment, employees should accurately confirm, from the time of hiring, which contract‑term provisions in the work rules or collective agreements apply to them, whether they are re‑employed as fixed‑term (choktack) employees after mandatory retirement, or are ordinary fixed‑term employees, and so on, in order to reduce unnecessary disputes.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when concluding a fixed‑term employment contract, the “employment period” and the contract type (fixed‑term, fixed‑term (choktack), probationary/training, etc.) should be clearly stated in the employment contract. If a probationary/training system is operated, the purpose of the system, the evaluation method, and the criteria for deciding on regular employment should be set out in detail in the work rules or internal regulations. In particular, fixed‑term (choktack) employees re‑employed after mandatory retirement should be distinguished from ordinary fixed‑term or fixed‑term (choktack) employees in the regulations, and this distinction should be applied consistently in practice, in order to gain credibility before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
Furthermore, if termination upon expiry of the term is anticipated, it is necessary to specify in the contract that “the employment relationship will terminate upon expiry of the contract term without separate notice,” and to manage personnel practices so that there is no pattern of contract renewals or application of personnel evaluation and promotion systems similar to those for regular employees, thereby reducing misunderstandings that the contract term is merely a formality.
This decision illustrates, independently of disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals, how important the wording of fixed‑term and fixed‑term (choktack) contracts and their actual operation are in practice. It is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and to clearly design, from the employment contract drafting stage, the contract term, whether a probationary/training period applies, and the scope of application of fixed‑term (choktack) provisions. This is a key point in preventing future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account: (i) that the written employment contract between the employer and the employee expressly specified a three‑month employment period; (ii) that although the employee argued that the three‑month period in the employment contract constituted a probationary period for evaluation prior to regular employment, he/she failed to prove this; (iii) that the case appears to fall under the contractual exception to the application of a probationary period, namely “where the employee is hired with recognition of prior experience”; (iv) that the work rules provision stating “the contract period for fixed‑term (choktack) employment is one year” applies where an employee continues to work as a fixed‑term (choktack) employee after mandatory retirement from the company, and that this employee does not fall within the scope of that provision; and (v) that, where an employment contract is concluded for a fixed period, the employment relationship naturally terminates upon expiry of that period, the Commission held that the employment contract had terminated upon expiry of its term and that there had been no dismissal.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account: (i) that the written employment contract between the employer and the employee expressly specified a three‑month employment period; (ii) that although the employee argued that the three‑month period in the employment contract constituted a probationary period for evaluation prior to regular employment, he/she failed to prove this; (iii) that the case appears to fall under the contractual exception to the application of a probationary period, namely “where the employee is hired with recognition of prior experience”; (iv) that the work rules provision stating “the contract period for fixed‑term (choktack) employment is one year” applies where an employee continues to work as a fixed‑term (choktack) employee after mandatory retirement from the company, and that this employee does not fall within the scope of that provision; and (v) that, where an employment contract is concluded for a fixed period, the employment relationship naturally terminates upon expiry of that period, the Commission held that the employment contract had terminated upon expiry of its term and that there had been no dismissal. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Renewal (Convenience Store Contract Expiry)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expiry of contract term (three‑month fixed‑term (choktack) 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Renewal (Convenience Store Contract Expiry)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to expiry of contract term (three‑month fixed‑term (choktack) contract) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Expiry of Contract Term (Three‑Month Fixed‑Term (Choktack) Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) in a dispute over “expiry of contract term (three‑month fixed-term contract).”
Decision Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025부해9836 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.09 · Result: Application dismissed
Key issues in summary: (i) the written employment contract between the employer and the employee expressly specified a three‑month employment period; (ii) the employee argued that the three months constituted a probationary period for evaluation prior to regular employment, but failed to prove this; (iii) the case appeared to fall under the contractual exception to the application of a probationary period, namely “where the employee is hired with recognition of prior experience”; (iv) the work rules provision that “the contract period for fixed‑term (choktack) employment is one year” applies to employees who continue to work as fixed‑term (choktack) employees after mandatory retirement from the company, and …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee claimed unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that his/her departure upon expiry of a three‑month fixed employment term constituted unfair dismissal. The employer and the employee had executed a written employment contract specifying a three‑month employment period, and the dispute centered on whether this three‑month period was merely a fixed‑term contract or a probationary/training period premised on subsequent regular employment.
The employee asserted that, as a fixed‑term (choktack) employee, he/she expected to work for at least one year, and that the three‑month period was only a probationary period for evaluation. On the other hand, the employer argued that a three‑month fixed‑term employment contract had been concluded from the outset, that the employment relationship naturally ended upon expiry of that term, and that there had been no dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The key issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the employment contract expressly specifies a three‑month employment period, that period can be regarded as a probationary/training period premised on subsequent regular employment, or whether it should instead be viewed as the term of a fixed‑term employment contract, such that the employment relationship is deemed to have ended upon expiry of the term.
A further issue was whether the provision in the work rules stating that “the contract period for fixed‑term (choktack) employment is one year” applied to this employee, and, accordingly, whether the termination of the employment relationship after only three months constituted unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel noted that the written employment contract executed by the employer and the employee expressly specified a three‑month employment period; that although the employee claimed that this three‑month period was a probationary period, he/she failed to prove any separate agreement, documentation, or basis in the work rules supporting this; and that the case appeared to fall under the contractual exception to the application of a probationary period, namely “where the employee is hired with recognition of prior experience.”
In light of these factors, the panel held that it was appropriate to regard the contract not as a probationary/training contract as claimed by the employee, but as a three‑month fixed‑term employment contract with a definite term.
The panel further held that the work rules provision stating that “the contract period for fixed‑term (choktack) employment is one year” applies to fixed‑term (choktack) employees who are re‑employed after reaching the mandatory retirement age, and that this employee did not fall within the scope of that provision. Moreover, based on the general legal principles governing fixed‑term employment contracts, where an employment contract is concluded for a fixed period, the employment relationship naturally terminates upon expiry of that period without any need for a separate notice of dismissal. On this basis, the panel found that the case involved termination due to expiry of the contract term, and that no dismissal had occurred.
Accordingly, the “dismissal” in this case was deemed not to exist, and the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed, resulting in a decision in favor of the employer.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, where the “employment period” is specifically stated in the employment contract, it is difficult to challenge termination as unfair dismissal based solely on a subjective understanding such as “I thought it was a probationary period” or “I expected conversion to regular employment.” To argue that the period was probationary/training, it is important to secure objective materials showing that it was a “probationary period for evaluation prior to regular employment,” such as provisions in the employment contract or work rules, recruitment announcements, or documents on the operation of evaluation systems.
In addition, in cases of fixed‑term (choktack) or other fixed‑term employment, employees should accurately confirm, from the time of hiring, which contract‑term provisions in the work rules or collective agreements apply to them, whether they are re‑employed as fixed‑term (choktack) employees after mandatory retirement, or are ordinary fixed‑term employees, and so on, in order to reduce unnecessary disputes.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when concluding a fixed‑term employment contract, the “employment period” and the contract type (fixed‑term, fixed‑term (choktack), probationary/training, etc.) should be clearly stated in the employment contract. If a probationary/training system is operated, the purpose of the system, the evaluation method, and the criteria for deciding on regular employment should be set out in detail in the work rules or internal regulations. In particular, fixed‑term (choktack) employees re‑employed after mandatory retirement should be distinguished from ordinary fixed‑term or fixed‑term (choktack) employees in the regulations, and this distinction should be applied consistently in practice, in order to gain credibility before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
Furthermore, if termination upon expiry of the term is anticipated, it is necessary to specify in the contract that “the employment relationship will terminate upon expiry of the contract term without separate notice,” and to manage personnel practices so that there is no pattern of contract renewals or application of personnel evaluation and promotion systems similar to those for regular employees, thereby reducing misunderstandings that the contract term is merely a formality.
This decision illustrates, independently of disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals, how important the wording of fixed‑term and fixed‑term (choktack) contracts and their actual operation are in practice. It is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and to clearly design, from the employment contract drafting stage, the contract term, whether a probationary/training period applies, and the scope of application of fixed‑term (choktack) provisions. This is a key point in preventing future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into account: (i) that the written employment contract between the employer and the employee expressly specified a three‑month employment period; (ii) that although the employee argued that the three‑month period in the employment contract constituted a probationary period for evaluation prior to regular employment, he/she failed to prove this; (iii) that the case appears to fall under the contractual exception to the application of a probationary period, namely “where the employee is hired with recognition of prior experience”; (iv) that the work rules provision stating “the contract period for fixed‑term (choktack) employment is one year” applies where an employee continues to work as a fixed‑term (choktack) employee after mandatory retirement from the company, and that this employee does not fall within the scope of that provision; and (v) that, where an employment contract is concluded for a fixed period, the employment relationship naturally terminates upon expiry of that period, the Commission held that the employment contract had terminated upon expiry of its term and that there had been no dismissal.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account: (i) that the written employment contract between the employer and the employee expressly specified a three‑month employment period; (ii) that although the employee argued that the three‑month period in the employment contract constituted a probationary period for evaluation prior to regular employment, he/she failed to prove this; (iii) that the case appears to fall under the contractual exception to the application of a probationary period, namely “where the employee is hired with recognition of prior experience”; (iv) that the work rules provision stating “the contract period for fixed‑term (choktack) employment is one year” applies where an employee continues to work as a fixed‑term (choktack) employee after mandatory retirement from the company, and that this employee does not fall within the scope of that provision; and (v) that, where an employment contract is concluded for a fixed period, the employment relationship naturally terminates upon expiry of that period, the Commission held that the employment contract had terminated upon expiry of its term and that there had been no dismissal. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Renewal (Convenience Store Contract Expiry)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expiry of contract term (three‑month fixed‑term (choktack) 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 one in the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expectation of Renewal (Convenience Store Contract Expiry)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to expiry of contract term (three‑month fixed‑term (choktack) contract) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Expiry of Contract Term (Three‑Month Fixed‑Term (Choktack) Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
