Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Employees Aged 55 and Over): Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 346)
- Date2026/04/04 04:13
- Read 168
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (employees aged 55 and over).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 2 ○ ○ ○
Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.02.24 · Outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the worker was an employee with no fixed term of employment
As of 2 January 2025, the date of the employment contract concluded after the worker reached the age of 55, the worker’s continuous service had not exceeded two years. Accordingly, the worker falls under the category of an employee aged 55 or older under Article 4(1)4 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees (the “Fixed-Term Act”), to whom the two‑year limit on the use of fixed-term employees does not apply. Therefore, Article 4(2) of the same Act does not apply, and it is reasonable to regard the worker as a “fixed-term employee” with a definite term.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application for relief filed with the Labor Relations Commission by an older worker aged 55 or over, claiming that the termination of the employment relationship upon expiry of a fixed-term employment contract constituted unfair dismissal. The worker argued that he was in substance an employee with no fixed term of employment, or at least that he had a legitimate expectation of conversion to an open-ended contract or renewal of the contract. The employer argued that the employment relationship ended automatically upon expiry of the fixed-term contract.
Focusing on the exception for older workers under the Fixed-Term Act and the legal doctrine of legitimate expectation of renewal, the Labor Relations Commission dismissed the worker’s application for relief from unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a worker aged 55 or over who has entered into a fixed-term employment contract can be recognized as having the status of an employee with no fixed term of employment, or a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract or conversion to an open-ended contract.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that, as of 2 January 2025, the date of the employment contract concluded after the worker reached the age of 55, the worker’s continuous service had not exceeded two years; that, under Article 4(1)4 of the Fixed-Term Act, employees aged 55 or older fall under an exception to the two-year limit on the use of fixed-term employees; and that, therefore, the provision in Article 4(2) of the same Act on automatic conversion to an open-ended contract upon exceeding two years of service does not apply.
Accordingly, the panel held that the worker was a “fixed-term employee” with a definite term of employment.
In addition, there were no provisions on contract renewal or conversion to an open-ended contract in the fixed-term employee management rules or in the worker’s employment contract; there was no evidence of a customary practice of contract renewal; and the Supreme Court has held that, for a legitimate expectation of renewal or conversion to an open-ended contract to be recognized, there must be relevant rules, practices, or a relationship of trust.
Taking these factors into account, the panel found that no legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract existed in this case.
Accordingly, there was no need to further examine whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract, and the panel held that termination of the employment relationship due solely to expiry of the fixed term did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Workers who, as older employees aged 55 or over, enter into fixed-term employment contracts should be aware that it is difficult to conclude that they are automatically converted to open-ended employees merely because their continuous service exceeds two years. In particular, where there are no provisions on renewal or conversion to an open-ended contract in the employment contract, rules of employment, or collective agreement, and there is no actual practice of repeated renewals, it is not easy for a legitimate expectation of renewal to be recognized. It is therefore advisable to request that conditions for renewal and conversion be clearly stipulated in writing from the contract negotiation stage.
Even where an exception for older workers exists, there may still be room in individual cases for recognition of a legitimate expectation of renewal or conversion to an open-ended contract where there has been long-term repeated renewal, an explicit promise of conversion, or an established evaluation/ conversion system. It is important to secure objective evidence in advance as to the structure and practices under which one’s contract has been operated.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even though an exception to the two-year limit under the Fixed-Term Act is recognized for employees aged 55 or over, it is essential to bear in mind the Supreme Court’s trend of recognizing legitimate expectations of renewal in cases such as re-employment of employees past the mandatory retirement age and utilization of professionals and older workers. Accordingly, when hiring older workers on fixed-term contracts, it is advisable to specify in the contract the contract period, whether renewal is possible, the conditions and procedures for renewal, and whether conversion to an open-ended contract is available, in order to prevent unnecessary formation of expectations.
Furthermore, where fixed-term employees in the same or similar positions have been repeatedly renewed as a matter of practice, such circumstances may serve as a basis for recognizing a legitimate expectation of renewal. Aligning human resource management policies with actual operational practices and establishing objective and reasonable criteria for evaluation and selection, and documenting them, will greatly help prevent disputes.
This decision by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates how the legal status of older fixed-term employees and the recognition of legitimate expectations of renewal require meticulous legal analysis in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal disputes. Both workers and employers are advised to consult sufficiently in advance with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& when designing contract structures and internal rules.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker was an employee with no fixed term of employment
As of 2 January 2025, the date of the employment contract concluded after the worker reached the age of 55, the worker’s continuous service had not exceeded two years. Accordingly, the worker falls under the category of an employee aged 55 or older under Article 4(1)4 of the Fixed-Term Act, and Article 4(2) of the same Act does not apply. It is therefore reasonable to regard the worker as a “fixed-term employee” with a definite term of employment.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract was recognized
There are no provisions on renewal of the employment contract in the fixed-term employee management rules or in the worker’s employment contract, and there is no basis to find that a practice of contract renewal existed. Therefore, no legitimate expectation of renewal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the worker was an employee with no fixed term of employment
As of 2 January 2025, the date of the employment contract concluded after the worker reached the age of 55, the worker’s continuous service had not exceeded two years. Accordingly, the worker falls under the category of an employee aged 55 or older under Article 4(1)4 of the Fixed-Term Act, and Article 4(2) of the same Act does not apply. It is therefore reasonable to regard the worker as a “fixed-term employee” with a definite term of employment.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract was recognized
There are no provisions on renewal of the employment contract in the fixed-term employee management rules or in the worker’s employment contract, and there is no basis to find that a practice of contract renewal existed. Therefore, no legitimate expectation of renewal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract. /
[Related Decisions]
- “Non-Existence of Standing (Denial of Implied Employment Contract)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (employees aged 55 and over), 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, “‘Non-Existence of Standing (Denial of Implied Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (employees aged 55 and over) can be found under “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Employees Aged 55 and Over).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (employees aged 55 and over).”
Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 2 ○ ○ ○
Unfair Dismissal Relief Application
Decision date: 2026.02.24 · Outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the worker was an employee with no fixed term of employment
As of 2 January 2025, the date of the employment contract concluded after the worker reached the age of 55, the worker’s continuous service had not exceeded two years. Accordingly, the worker falls under the category of an employee aged 55 or older under Article 4(1)4 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees (the “Fixed-Term Act”), to whom the two‑year limit on the use of fixed-term employees does not apply. Therefore, Article 4(2) of the same Act does not apply, and it is reasonable to regard the worker as a “fixed-term employee” with a definite term.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an application for relief filed with the Labor Relations Commission by an older worker aged 55 or over, claiming that the termination of the employment relationship upon expiry of a fixed-term employment contract constituted unfair dismissal. The worker argued that he was in substance an employee with no fixed term of employment, or at least that he had a legitimate expectation of conversion to an open-ended contract or renewal of the contract. The employer argued that the employment relationship ended automatically upon expiry of the fixed-term contract.
Focusing on the exception for older workers under the Fixed-Term Act and the legal doctrine of legitimate expectation of renewal, the Labor Relations Commission dismissed the worker’s application for relief from unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Whether a worker aged 55 or over who has entered into a fixed-term employment contract can be recognized as having the status of an employee with no fixed term of employment, or a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract or conversion to an open-ended contract.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that, as of 2 January 2025, the date of the employment contract concluded after the worker reached the age of 55, the worker’s continuous service had not exceeded two years; that, under Article 4(1)4 of the Fixed-Term Act, employees aged 55 or older fall under an exception to the two-year limit on the use of fixed-term employees; and that, therefore, the provision in Article 4(2) of the same Act on automatic conversion to an open-ended contract upon exceeding two years of service does not apply.
Accordingly, the panel held that the worker was a “fixed-term employee” with a definite term of employment.
In addition, there were no provisions on contract renewal or conversion to an open-ended contract in the fixed-term employee management rules or in the worker’s employment contract; there was no evidence of a customary practice of contract renewal; and the Supreme Court has held that, for a legitimate expectation of renewal or conversion to an open-ended contract to be recognized, there must be relevant rules, practices, or a relationship of trust.
Taking these factors into account, the panel found that no legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract existed in this case.
Accordingly, there was no need to further examine whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract, and the panel held that termination of the employment relationship due solely to expiry of the fixed term did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Workers who, as older employees aged 55 or over, enter into fixed-term employment contracts should be aware that it is difficult to conclude that they are automatically converted to open-ended employees merely because their continuous service exceeds two years. In particular, where there are no provisions on renewal or conversion to an open-ended contract in the employment contract, rules of employment, or collective agreement, and there is no actual practice of repeated renewals, it is not easy for a legitimate expectation of renewal to be recognized. It is therefore advisable to request that conditions for renewal and conversion be clearly stipulated in writing from the contract negotiation stage.
Even where an exception for older workers exists, there may still be room in individual cases for recognition of a legitimate expectation of renewal or conversion to an open-ended contract where there has been long-term repeated renewal, an explicit promise of conversion, or an established evaluation/ conversion system. It is important to secure objective evidence in advance as to the structure and practices under which one’s contract has been operated.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, even though an exception to the two-year limit under the Fixed-Term Act is recognized for employees aged 55 or over, it is essential to bear in mind the Supreme Court’s trend of recognizing legitimate expectations of renewal in cases such as re-employment of employees past the mandatory retirement age and utilization of professionals and older workers. Accordingly, when hiring older workers on fixed-term contracts, it is advisable to specify in the contract the contract period, whether renewal is possible, the conditions and procedures for renewal, and whether conversion to an open-ended contract is available, in order to prevent unnecessary formation of expectations.
Furthermore, where fixed-term employees in the same or similar positions have been repeatedly renewed as a matter of practice, such circumstances may serve as a basis for recognizing a legitimate expectation of renewal. Aligning human resource management policies with actual operational practices and establishing objective and reasonable criteria for evaluation and selection, and documenting them, will greatly help prevent disputes.
This decision by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates how the legal status of older fixed-term employees and the recognition of legitimate expectations of renewal require meticulous legal analysis in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal disputes. Both workers and employers are advised to consult sufficiently in advance with specialized institutions such as Labor Law Firm Law& when designing contract structures and internal rules.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the worker was an employee with no fixed term of employment
As of 2 January 2025, the date of the employment contract concluded after the worker reached the age of 55, the worker’s continuous service had not exceeded two years. Accordingly, the worker falls under the category of an employee aged 55 or older under Article 4(1)4 of the Fixed-Term Act, and Article 4(2) of the same Act does not apply. It is therefore reasonable to regard the worker as a “fixed-term employee” with a definite term of employment.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract was recognized
There are no provisions on renewal of the employment contract in the fixed-term employee management rules or in the worker’s employment contract, and there is no basis to find that a practice of contract renewal existed. Therefore, no legitimate expectation of renewal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the worker was an employee with no fixed term of employment
As of 2 January 2025, the date of the employment contract concluded after the worker reached the age of 55, the worker’s continuous service had not exceeded two years. Accordingly, the worker falls under the category of an employee aged 55 or older under Article 4(1)4 of the Fixed-Term Act, and Article 4(2) of the same Act does not apply. It is therefore reasonable to regard the worker as a “fixed-term employee” with a definite term of employment.
B. Whether a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract was recognized
There are no provisions on renewal of the employment contract in the fixed-term employee management rules or in the worker’s employment contract, and there is no basis to find that a practice of contract renewal existed. Therefore, no legitimate expectation of renewal exists. Accordingly, there is no need to further examine whether there was a reasonable ground for refusing conversion to an open-ended contract. /
[Related Decisions]
- “Non-Existence of Standing (Denial of Implied Employment Contract)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)” Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (employees aged 55 and over), 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, “‘Non-Existence of Standing (Denial of Implied Employment Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (employees aged 55 and over) can be found under “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Employees Aged 55 and Over).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
