Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Non‑Existence of Renewal Expectation Right (Fixed-Term at Initial Stage of Business)” (Unfair Dismissal 376)
- Date2026/04/15 04:13
- Read 177
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non‑existence of renewal expectation right (fixed-term at initial stage of business).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal10101 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.13 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that he/she was in substance an employee with an indefinite-term employment contract, or at least held a legitimate expectation right to renewal of the fixed-term employment contract, and that the employer’s refusal to renew the contract constituted an unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, focusing on the contract term specified in the written employment contract and the circumstances of the workplace, whether this employee was a fixed-term employee and whether a renewal expectation right could be recognized.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “whether, in a newly established business where the employment contract clearly specifies a fixed term and there are no separate provisions or established practices regarding renewal, the employee can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation right to renewal of the employment contract, and further, whether the expiration of the term can be regarded as an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employment period was clearly specified in the written employment contract; that neither the employment contract nor the work rules contained any provisions setting out standards or procedures for contract renewal; that, apart from preparing an additional employment contract after the initial three‑month probationary contract, the employer had no history of repeatedly renewing fixed-term employment contracts; and that, as the business had recently opened, it was difficult to find that a practice of routinely renewing fixed-term contracts had been established.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that there was no objective evidence to support the employee’s assertion that the contract was in fact an “indefinite-term employment contract,” and that it was difficult to conclude that any relationship of trust or renewal practice had been formed under which the contract would naturally be renewed upon expiration of the term.
The panel held that this dismissal should be viewed as an automatic separation from employment due to expiration of the employment term, and that, since no renewal expectation right could be recognized, it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where the employment contract clearly specifies a contract term, a purely subjective expectation such as “I thought I would continue working” is generally insufficient to support a claim of unfair dismissal. It is important to secure objective evidence that can substantiate a renewal expectation right, such as: the existence of written rules on renewal criteria; actual multiple renewals having been carried out; or circumstances showing that employees in comparable positions have generally had their contracts renewed absent special reasons.
In addition, understanding in advance the legal principle under the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees that continuous use of a fixed-term employee for more than two years converts the relationship into an indefinite-term contract, as well as the Supreme Court’s requirements for recognizing a renewal expectation right (such as the content of the contract, circumstances of its conclusion, renewal standards and procedures, and continuity of work), will help you set a clearer direction for asserting “unfair dismissal” before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly specify the contract term in the written employment contract and to set out explicit standards for managing fixed-term employees in the work rules and HR regulations, in order to prevent unnecessary disputes over renewal expectation rights. In particular, unlike redundancy dismissals, expiration of a fixed term is, in principle, not a dismissal. However, if you establish a practice of repeated renewals or formal criteria for re‑contracting, those very practices and criteria may become grounds for recognizing a renewal expectation right. Accordingly, actual HR practices and written rules should be managed so that they are consistent.
Even in newly opened workplaces where no practices have yet been formed, it is useful, in anticipation of future disputes, to document the purpose of hiring fixed-term employees, the reasons for setting the contract term, and the criteria for deciding on renewal. Doing so will enable the company to present its arguments more persuasively when the Labor Relations Commission makes its determination. In the course of organizing these matters systematically, obtaining advice from a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& can be practically helpful.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. As the employment period is clearly specified in the written employment contract, the employee is to be regarded as a fixed-term employee.
b. (1) Apart from the employee’s assertion that the employment contract was in fact an indefinite-term contract, there is no evidence to support the existence of a renewal expectation right; there are no provisions in the employment contract or work rules regarding contract renewal; other than preparing an additional employment contract after the initial three‑month probationary employment contract, the employer has no history of renewing the employment contract; and, as the business has only recently opened, there are no circumstances indicating that a practice of renewing fixed-term contracts has been established. Taken together, a renewal expectation right cannot be recognized.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
a. As the employment period is clearly specified in the written employment contract, the employee is to be regarded as a fixed-term employee.
b. (1) Apart from the employee’s assertion that the employment contract was in fact an indefinite-term contract, there is no evidence to support the existence of a renewal expectation right; there are no provisions in the employment contract or work rules regarding contract renewal; other than preparing an additional employment contract after the initial three‑month probationary employment contract, the employer has no history of renewing the employment contract; and, as the business has only recently opened, there are no circumstances indicating that a practice of renewing fixed-term contracts has been established. Taken together, a renewal expectation right cannot be recognized. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Submission of Resignation (KakaoTalk Circumstances)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non‑existence of renewal expectation right (fixed-term at initial stage of business), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, dismissal during probation, 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 of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Submission of Resignation (KakaoTalk Circumstances)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions relating to non‑existence of renewal expectation right (fixed-term at initial stage of business) at “List of Decisions Relating to Non‑Existence of Renewal Expectation Right (Fixed-Term at Initial Stage of Business).”
※ 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 renewal expectation right (fixed-term at initial stage of business).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025UnfairDismissal10101 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.13 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a)
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, arguing that he/she was in substance an employee with an indefinite-term employment contract, or at least held a legitimate expectation right to renewal of the fixed-term employment contract, and that the employer’s refusal to renew the contract constituted an unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, focusing on the contract term specified in the written employment contract and the circumstances of the workplace, whether this employee was a fixed-term employee and whether a renewal expectation right could be recognized.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is “whether, in a newly established business where the employment contract clearly specifies a fixed term and there are no separate provisions or established practices regarding renewal, the employee can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation right to renewal of the employment contract, and further, whether the expiration of the term can be regarded as an unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employment period was clearly specified in the written employment contract; that neither the employment contract nor the work rules contained any provisions setting out standards or procedures for contract renewal; that, apart from preparing an additional employment contract after the initial three‑month probationary contract, the employer had no history of repeatedly renewing fixed-term employment contracts; and that, as the business had recently opened, it was difficult to find that a practice of routinely renewing fixed-term contracts had been established.
In light of these circumstances, the panel found that there was no objective evidence to support the employee’s assertion that the contract was in fact an “indefinite-term employment contract,” and that it was difficult to conclude that any relationship of trust or renewal practice had been formed under which the contract would naturally be renewed upon expiration of the term.
The panel held that this dismissal should be viewed as an automatic separation from employment due to expiration of the employment term, and that, since no renewal expectation right could be recognized, it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where the employment contract clearly specifies a contract term, a purely subjective expectation such as “I thought I would continue working” is generally insufficient to support a claim of unfair dismissal. It is important to secure objective evidence that can substantiate a renewal expectation right, such as: the existence of written rules on renewal criteria; actual multiple renewals having been carried out; or circumstances showing that employees in comparable positions have generally had their contracts renewed absent special reasons.
In addition, understanding in advance the legal principle under the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees that continuous use of a fixed-term employee for more than two years converts the relationship into an indefinite-term contract, as well as the Supreme Court’s requirements for recognizing a renewal expectation right (such as the content of the contract, circumstances of its conclusion, renewal standards and procedures, and continuity of work), will help you set a clearer direction for asserting “unfair dismissal” before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly specify the contract term in the written employment contract and to set out explicit standards for managing fixed-term employees in the work rules and HR regulations, in order to prevent unnecessary disputes over renewal expectation rights. In particular, unlike redundancy dismissals, expiration of a fixed term is, in principle, not a dismissal. However, if you establish a practice of repeated renewals or formal criteria for re‑contracting, those very practices and criteria may become grounds for recognizing a renewal expectation right. Accordingly, actual HR practices and written rules should be managed so that they are consistent.
Even in newly opened workplaces where no practices have yet been formed, it is useful, in anticipation of future disputes, to document the purpose of hiring fixed-term employees, the reasons for setting the contract term, and the criteria for deciding on renewal. Doing so will enable the company to present its arguments more persuasively when the Labor Relations Commission makes its determination. In the course of organizing these matters systematically, obtaining advice from a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law& can be practically helpful.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
a. As the employment period is clearly specified in the written employment contract, the employee is to be regarded as a fixed-term employee.
b. (1) Apart from the employee’s assertion that the employment contract was in fact an indefinite-term contract, there is no evidence to support the existence of a renewal expectation right; there are no provisions in the employment contract or work rules regarding contract renewal; other than preparing an additional employment contract after the initial three‑month probationary employment contract, the employer has no history of renewing the employment contract; and, as the business has only recently opened, there are no circumstances indicating that a practice of renewing fixed-term contracts has been established. Taken together, a renewal expectation right cannot be recognized.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
a. As the employment period is clearly specified in the written employment contract, the employee is to be regarded as a fixed-term employee.
b. (1) Apart from the employee’s assertion that the employment contract was in fact an indefinite-term contract, there is no evidence to support the existence of a renewal expectation right; there are no provisions in the employment contract or work rules regarding contract renewal; other than preparing an additional employment contract after the initial three‑month probationary employment contract, the employer has no history of renewing the employment contract; and, as the business has only recently opened, there are no circumstances indicating that a practice of renewing fixed-term contracts has been established. Taken together, a renewal expectation right cannot be recognized. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Submission of Resignation (KakaoTalk Circumstances)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non‑existence of renewal expectation right (fixed-term at initial stage of business), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, dismissal during probation, 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 of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Submission of Resignation (KakaoTalk Circumstances)’,” in a new window.
※ You can also view the list of decisions relating to non‑existence of renewal expectation right (fixed-term at initial stage of business) at “List of Decisions Relating to Non‑Existence of Renewal Expectation Right (Fixed-Term at Initial Stage of Business).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
