Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year Fixed-Term Call Center Employee) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 364)
- Date2026/04/10 04:12
- Read 184
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of expectation of renewal (one-year fixed-term call center employee).”
Decision Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae10068 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.19 · Outcome: Application dismissed
Summary of key issue:
① The employment contract concluded between the worker and the employer on 23 September 2024 clearly specified the contract period as from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025, and stated that “upon expiration of the contract period, this employment contract shall automatically terminate without separate notice of dismissal.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case involves a fixed-term worker who claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, but the Commission ruled in favor of the employer. The worker entered into a fixed-term employment contract for the period from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025 and worked under that contract. When the contract was not renewed upon expiration, the worker disputed this as an unfair dismissal.
Labor Law Firm Law& focuses on how “unfair dismissal” and the existence of an expectation of renewal are assessed in cases involving the termination of fixed-term employment contracts, and therefore examines this recent decision of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a fixed-term employment contract where the contract period is clearly defined and there are no separate criteria or established practices for renewal, the worker can nonetheless be recognized as having an expectation of renewal of the employment contract.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the employment contract clearly specified the contract period as from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025 and provided that “upon expiration of the contract period, this employment contract shall automatically terminate without separate notice of dismissal,” that the rules of employment contained only a provision for automatic retirement upon expiration of the employment contract and contained no criteria or procedures whatsoever for renewal, that among workers in the same job category and with the same employment type there were both cases where contracts were renewed and cases where they were not, making it difficult to recognize a uniform practice of renewal, and that there was no evidence that the employer had guaranteed or assured renewal of the contract, making it difficult to find that a relationship of trust regarding renewal had been formed between the parties.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the fixed term of the employment contract must be regarded as having substantive meaning, and that it was difficult to find that the worker had acquired an expectation of renewal.
The Commission therefore held that the termination in this case should be regarded as an automatic termination upon expiration of the contract period, and that it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Where the employment contract clearly sets out the contract period and includes a clause stating that the contract will “automatically terminate upon expiration of the period,” and where there are no repeated and uniform renewal practices or specific renewal criteria within the company, it is difficult to have an expectation of renewal recognized based solely on the fact that “a significant number of colleagues had their contracts extended.” Accordingly, when joining a company as a fixed-term worker, you should carefully check from the outset the contract’s provisions on term, the rules of employment regarding automatic retirement and renewal, the actual renewal practices, and any statements made by the employer (including whether any assurances were given).
In addition, if you are considering filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to prepare in advance materials that can support not merely that the contract expired, but that “a legitimate expectation of contract renewal had been formed” (such as written renewal criteria, records of repeated renewals, and recordings or messages containing assurance-type statements).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when utilizing fixed-term workers, it is necessary to clearly include in the employment contract the contract period and language to the effect that the contract will “automatically terminate upon expiration of the period without separate notice of dismissal,” and to ensure that the rules of employment are aligned with provisions for automatic retirement upon expiration of the employment contract. Furthermore, if a practice is established of uniformly and automatically renewing the contracts of fixed-term workers in the same job category, the likelihood that an expectation of renewal will be recognized increases. Employers should therefore operate renewal decisions flexibly and manage workforce operations so that both renewal and non-renewal cases coexist.
In addition, if managers frequently make assurance-type statements during the selection/interview process or during employment—such as “you can continue working,” or “we will keep you on as long as there are no problems”—these may be used as grounds to find the formation of a relationship of trust. It is therefore advisable to manage such expressions through training, and if renewal screening criteria are introduced, to document those criteria and procedures to secure objectivity and reasonableness, thereby helping to prevent disputes.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The employment contract concluded between the worker and the employer on 23 September 2024 clearly specified the contract period as from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025 and stated that “upon expiration of the contract period, this employment contract shall automatically terminate without separate notice of dismissal,” ② there are no provisions in the employment contract or the rules of employment regarding the criteria or conditions for renewal of the employment contract, and Article 37 of the rules of employment instead provides that the worker shall automatically retire upon expiration of the employment contract, ③ among workers in the same job category and with the same employment type, there are both cases where the employment contract was renewed and cases where it was not, making it difficult to find that the company had formed a repeated and uniform practice of renewal, and ④ there is no evidence that the employer made any assurances or guarantee-type statements premised on renewal of the employment contract, and it is also difficult to find that a relationship of trust regarding contract renewal was formed between the parties. In light of all of these factors, it is difficult to find that the worker had an expectation of renewal of the employment contract.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The employment contract concluded between the worker and the employer on 23 September 2024 clearly specified the contract period as from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025 and stated that “upon expiration of the contract period, this employment contract shall automatically terminate without separate notice of dismissal,” ② there are no provisions in the employment contract or the rules of employment regarding the criteria or conditions for renewal of the employment contract, and Article 37 of the rules of employment instead provides that the worker shall automatically retire upon expiration of the employment contract, ③ among workers in the same job category and with the same employment type, there are both cases where the employment contract was renewed and cases where it was not, making it difficult to find that the company had formed a repeated and uniform practice of renewal, and ④ there is no evidence that the employer made any assurances or guarantee-type statements premised on renewal of the employment contract, and it is also difficult to find that a relationship of trust regarding contract renewal was formed between the parties. In light of all of these factors, it is difficult to find that the worker had an expectation of renewal of the employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year One-Off Fixed-Term Employee)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Disciplinary Action for Industrial Action (No Recognition of Unfair Labor Practice)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of expectation of renewal (one-year fixed-term call center employee), 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, “‘Disciplinary Action for Industrial Action (No Recognition of Unfair Labor Practice)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to non-existence of expectation of renewal (one-year fixed-term call center employee) on the “Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year Fixed-Term Call Center Employee) – Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Decision Body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025Buhae10068 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.19 · Outcome: Application dismissed
Summary of key issue:
① The employment contract concluded between the worker and the employer on 23 September 2024 clearly specified the contract period as from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025, and stated that “upon expiration of the contract period, this employment contract shall automatically terminate without separate notice of dismissal.”
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case involves a fixed-term worker who claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, but the Commission ruled in favor of the employer. The worker entered into a fixed-term employment contract for the period from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025 and worked under that contract. When the contract was not renewed upon expiration, the worker disputed this as an unfair dismissal.
Labor Law Firm Law& focuses on how “unfair dismissal” and the existence of an expectation of renewal are assessed in cases involving the termination of fixed-term employment contracts, and therefore examines this recent decision of the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a fixed-term employment contract where the contract period is clearly defined and there are no separate criteria or established practices for renewal, the worker can nonetheless be recognized as having an expectation of renewal of the employment contract.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the employment contract clearly specified the contract period as from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025 and provided that “upon expiration of the contract period, this employment contract shall automatically terminate without separate notice of dismissal,” that the rules of employment contained only a provision for automatic retirement upon expiration of the employment contract and contained no criteria or procedures whatsoever for renewal, that among workers in the same job category and with the same employment type there were both cases where contracts were renewed and cases where they were not, making it difficult to recognize a uniform practice of renewal, and that there was no evidence that the employer had guaranteed or assured renewal of the contract, making it difficult to find that a relationship of trust regarding renewal had been formed between the parties.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the fixed term of the employment contract must be regarded as having substantive meaning, and that it was difficult to find that the worker had acquired an expectation of renewal.
The Commission therefore held that the termination in this case should be regarded as an automatic termination upon expiration of the contract period, and that it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Where the employment contract clearly sets out the contract period and includes a clause stating that the contract will “automatically terminate upon expiration of the period,” and where there are no repeated and uniform renewal practices or specific renewal criteria within the company, it is difficult to have an expectation of renewal recognized based solely on the fact that “a significant number of colleagues had their contracts extended.” Accordingly, when joining a company as a fixed-term worker, you should carefully check from the outset the contract’s provisions on term, the rules of employment regarding automatic retirement and renewal, the actual renewal practices, and any statements made by the employer (including whether any assurances were given).
In addition, if you are considering filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, it is important to prepare in advance materials that can support not merely that the contract expired, but that “a legitimate expectation of contract renewal had been formed” (such as written renewal criteria, records of repeated renewals, and recordings or messages containing assurance-type statements).
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when utilizing fixed-term workers, it is necessary to clearly include in the employment contract the contract period and language to the effect that the contract will “automatically terminate upon expiration of the period without separate notice of dismissal,” and to ensure that the rules of employment are aligned with provisions for automatic retirement upon expiration of the employment contract. Furthermore, if a practice is established of uniformly and automatically renewing the contracts of fixed-term workers in the same job category, the likelihood that an expectation of renewal will be recognized increases. Employers should therefore operate renewal decisions flexibly and manage workforce operations so that both renewal and non-renewal cases coexist.
In addition, if managers frequently make assurance-type statements during the selection/interview process or during employment—such as “you can continue working,” or “we will keep you on as long as there are no problems”—these may be used as grounds to find the formation of a relationship of trust. It is therefore advisable to manage such expressions through training, and if renewal screening criteria are introduced, to document those criteria and procedures to secure objectivity and reasonableness, thereby helping to prevent disputes.
2. Decision Details
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The employment contract concluded between the worker and the employer on 23 September 2024 clearly specified the contract period as from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025 and stated that “upon expiration of the contract period, this employment contract shall automatically terminate without separate notice of dismissal,” ② there are no provisions in the employment contract or the rules of employment regarding the criteria or conditions for renewal of the employment contract, and Article 37 of the rules of employment instead provides that the worker shall automatically retire upon expiration of the employment contract, ③ among workers in the same job category and with the same employment type, there are both cases where the employment contract was renewed and cases where it was not, making it difficult to find that the company had formed a repeated and uniform practice of renewal, and ④ there is no evidence that the employer made any assurances or guarantee-type statements premised on renewal of the employment contract, and it is also difficult to find that a relationship of trust regarding contract renewal was formed between the parties. In light of all of these factors, it is difficult to find that the worker had an expectation of renewal of the employment contract.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The employment contract concluded between the worker and the employer on 23 September 2024 clearly specified the contract period as from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025 and stated that “upon expiration of the contract period, this employment contract shall automatically terminate without separate notice of dismissal,” ② there are no provisions in the employment contract or the rules of employment regarding the criteria or conditions for renewal of the employment contract, and Article 37 of the rules of employment instead provides that the worker shall automatically retire upon expiration of the employment contract, ③ among workers in the same job category and with the same employment type, there are both cases where the employment contract was renewed and cases where it was not, making it difficult to find that the company had formed a repeated and uniform practice of renewal, and ④ there is no evidence that the employer made any assurances or guarantee-type statements premised on renewal of the employment contract, and it is also difficult to find that a relationship of trust regarding contract renewal was formed between the parties. In light of all of these factors, it is difficult to find that the worker had an expectation of renewal of the employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year One-Off Fixed-Term Employee)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘No Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Disciplinary Action for Industrial Action (No Recognition of Unfair Labor Practice)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of expectation of renewal (one-year fixed-term call center employee), 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, “‘Disciplinary Action for Industrial Action (No Recognition of Unfair Labor Practice)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions related to non-existence of expectation of renewal (one-year fixed-term call center employee) on the “Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year Fixed-Term Call Center Employee) – Related Decisions” page.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
