Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Refusal to Renew After Mandatory Retirement Age) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 378)
- Date2026/04/17 04:09
- Read 181
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of a legitimate expectation of renewal (refusal to renew after exceeding the mandatory retirement age).”
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of a legitimate expectation of renewal (refusal to renew after exceeding the mandatory retirement age).”
Decision body: Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9062 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.13 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: There were no provisions that could be regarded as concretely stipulating any obligation to renew, or the conditions or procedures for renewal of the fixed-term employment contract. Accordingly, it was difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed under which the employment contract would automatically be renewed once certain conditions were satisfied. There was no evidentiary material to support the worker’s allegation that, at the time of initial hiring, a condition was presented that “employment would be possible for five years,” and there was no employment practice of extending contracts beyond the mandatory retirement age of 63.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker who had been employed under successive fixed-term employment contracts after passing the mandatory retirement age (63). When the contract was not renewed upon expiry of the contract period, the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that the non-renewal constituted unfair dismissal.
The Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the legitimate expectation of renewal (gengsin-gidae-gwon) asserted by the worker existed, and whether the employer’s refusal to renew the contract constituted unfair dismissal. Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the worker’s application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a fixed-term worker who has already exceeded the mandatory retirement age can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract, and whether the refusal to renew the contract constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that there were no employment contracts, work rules, internal regulations, or similar provisions that concretely stipulated any obligation to renew, or the conditions and procedures for renewal of the contract. It therefore held that it was difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed under which the employment contract would automatically be renewed once certain conditions were satisfied.
It also found that there was no objective evidence to support the worker’s allegation that, at the time of initial hiring, a condition was presented that “employment would be possible for five years,” and that there was no employment practice of extending contracts beyond the mandatory retirement age of 63, nor any repeated renewals of contracts for other workers beyond that age.
In addition, the worker clearly recognized that the employment contract would terminate as of 25 September 2025, did not submit the self-evaluation form that had previously been submitted for the purpose of renewal evaluations, and expressed an intention that can be interpreted as a refusal to participate in the renewal evaluation.
Taking all of these circumstances into account, the Commission determined that it was difficult to find that any relationship of trust or legitimate expectation of renewal had been formed under which the employment contract would automatically be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the “dismissal” in this case was merely the termination of a fixed-term employment contract upon expiry of the agreed contract period, and therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Workers should bear in mind that a legitimate expectation of renewal is not always recognized solely on the basis of repeated renewals of a fixed-term employment contract. There must be objective grounds in the employment contract, work rules, collective agreement, or clear renewal practices indicating that “renewal will be carried out when certain conditions are satisfied.”
In particular, where contracts have been renewed after the worker has already passed the mandatory retirement age, the recognition of a legitimate expectation of renewal is assessed very strictly if there is no promise, rule, or practice guaranteeing continued employment beyond the retirement age.
Furthermore, the Labor Relations Commission places significant weight on the worker’s own attitude. Sincerely participating in the renewal evaluation procedures, submitting relevant documents (such as self-evaluation forms), and otherwise making one’s “intention to continue working” clear can serve as important indirect evidence in any future dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly specify in contracts with fixed-term workers the contract period, mandatory retirement age, possibility of renewal, and renewal evaluation procedures, in order to prevent unnecessary disputes over legitimate expectations of renewal.
In particular, when employing fixed-term workers who have passed the mandatory retirement age, employers should clearly state in writing that any renewal after retirement age is exceptional and temporary, and should specify the limits of renewal (for example, expressly stating that a given contract will be the last).
If personnel and evaluation procedures are in place, the wording of the relevant rules should be carefully drafted so that such procedures are not misunderstood as creating an “obligation to renew.” In actual operation, it is also advisable to maintain records showing a variety of outcomes, including cases in which renewal was refused.
These aspects can be organized in consultation with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, thereby creating a structure that is advantageous for the employer’s defense in future disputes relating to unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
There were no provisions that could be regarded as concretely stipulating any obligation to renew, or the conditions or procedures for renewal of the contract. Accordingly, it was difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed under which the employment contract would automatically be renewed once certain conditions were satisfied. There was no evidentiary material to support the worker’s allegation that, at the time of initial hiring, a condition was presented that “employment would be possible for five years,” and there was no employment practice of extending contracts beyond the mandatory retirement age of 63.
The worker also clearly recognized that the employment contract would terminate as of 25 September 2025, did not submit the self-evaluation form that had previously been submitted in the evaluation procedures, and expressed an intention not to participate in the renewal evaluation. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the worker could not be regarded as having any expectation right regarding renewal of the employment contract, and that the employment relationship was lawfully terminated upon expiry of the contract period.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
There were no provisions that could be regarded as concretely stipulating any obligation to renew, or the conditions or procedures for renewal of the contract. Accordingly, it was difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed under which the employment contract would automatically be renewed once certain conditions were satisfied. There was no evidentiary material to support the worker’s allegation that, at the time of initial hiring, a condition was presented that “employment would be possible for five years,” and there was no employment practice of extending contracts beyond the mandatory retirement age of 63.
The worker also clearly recognized that the employment contract would terminate as of 25 September 2025, did not submit the self-evaluation form that had previously been submitted in the evaluation procedures, and expressed an intention not to participate in the renewal evaluation. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the worker could not be regarded as having any expectation right regarding renewal of the employment contract, and that the employment relationship was lawfully terminated upon expiry of the contract period. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal During Probation (Refusal to Attend Work Following Workplace Bullying)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (refusal to renew after exceeding mandatory retirement age), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, labor law firm in Samseong-dong, labor law firm near Samseong Station, labor law firm in Gangnam
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Dismissal During Probation (Refusal to Attend Work Following Workplace Bullying)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (refusal to renew after exceeding mandatory retirement age) can be found under “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Refusal to Renew After Exceeding Mandatory Retirement Age).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of a legitimate expectation of renewal (refusal to renew after exceeding the mandatory retirement age).”
Decision body: Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025 Unfair Dismissal 9062 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.13 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: There were no provisions that could be regarded as concretely stipulating any obligation to renew, or the conditions or procedures for renewal of the fixed-term employment contract. Accordingly, it was difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed under which the employment contract would automatically be renewed once certain conditions were satisfied. There was no evidentiary material to support the worker’s allegation that, at the time of initial hiring, a condition was presented that “employment would be possible for five years,” and there was no employment practice of extending contracts beyond the mandatory retirement age of 63.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a worker who had been employed under successive fixed-term employment contracts after passing the mandatory retirement age (63). When the contract was not renewed upon expiry of the contract period, the worker filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that the non-renewal constituted unfair dismissal.
The Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the legitimate expectation of renewal (gengsin-gidae-gwon) asserted by the worker existed, and whether the employer’s refusal to renew the contract constituted unfair dismissal. Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the worker’s application.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether a fixed-term worker who has already exceeded the mandatory retirement age can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract, and whether the refusal to renew the contract constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case found that there were no employment contracts, work rules, internal regulations, or similar provisions that concretely stipulated any obligation to renew, or the conditions and procedures for renewal of the contract. It therefore held that it was difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed under which the employment contract would automatically be renewed once certain conditions were satisfied.
It also found that there was no objective evidence to support the worker’s allegation that, at the time of initial hiring, a condition was presented that “employment would be possible for five years,” and that there was no employment practice of extending contracts beyond the mandatory retirement age of 63, nor any repeated renewals of contracts for other workers beyond that age.
In addition, the worker clearly recognized that the employment contract would terminate as of 25 September 2025, did not submit the self-evaluation form that had previously been submitted for the purpose of renewal evaluations, and expressed an intention that can be interpreted as a refusal to participate in the renewal evaluation.
Taking all of these circumstances into account, the Commission determined that it was difficult to find that any relationship of trust or legitimate expectation of renewal had been formed under which the employment contract would automatically be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the “dismissal” in this case was merely the termination of a fixed-term employment contract upon expiry of the agreed contract period, and therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Workers should bear in mind that a legitimate expectation of renewal is not always recognized solely on the basis of repeated renewals of a fixed-term employment contract. There must be objective grounds in the employment contract, work rules, collective agreement, or clear renewal practices indicating that “renewal will be carried out when certain conditions are satisfied.”
In particular, where contracts have been renewed after the worker has already passed the mandatory retirement age, the recognition of a legitimate expectation of renewal is assessed very strictly if there is no promise, rule, or practice guaranteeing continued employment beyond the retirement age.
Furthermore, the Labor Relations Commission places significant weight on the worker’s own attitude. Sincerely participating in the renewal evaluation procedures, submitting relevant documents (such as self-evaluation forms), and otherwise making one’s “intention to continue working” clear can serve as important indirect evidence in any future dispute.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly specify in contracts with fixed-term workers the contract period, mandatory retirement age, possibility of renewal, and renewal evaluation procedures, in order to prevent unnecessary disputes over legitimate expectations of renewal.
In particular, when employing fixed-term workers who have passed the mandatory retirement age, employers should clearly state in writing that any renewal after retirement age is exceptional and temporary, and should specify the limits of renewal (for example, expressly stating that a given contract will be the last).
If personnel and evaluation procedures are in place, the wording of the relevant rules should be carefully drafted so that such procedures are not misunderstood as creating an “obligation to renew.” In actual operation, it is also advisable to maintain records showing a variety of outcomes, including cases in which renewal was refused.
These aspects can be organized in consultation with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&, thereby creating a structure that is advantageous for the employer’s defense in future disputes relating to unfair dismissal or redundancy dismissals.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
There were no provisions that could be regarded as concretely stipulating any obligation to renew, or the conditions or procedures for renewal of the contract. Accordingly, it was difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed under which the employment contract would automatically be renewed once certain conditions were satisfied. There was no evidentiary material to support the worker’s allegation that, at the time of initial hiring, a condition was presented that “employment would be possible for five years,” and there was no employment practice of extending contracts beyond the mandatory retirement age of 63.
The worker also clearly recognized that the employment contract would terminate as of 25 September 2025, did not submit the self-evaluation form that had previously been submitted in the evaluation procedures, and expressed an intention not to participate in the renewal evaluation. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the worker could not be regarded as having any expectation right regarding renewal of the employment contract, and that the employment relationship was lawfully terminated upon expiry of the contract period.
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
There were no provisions that could be regarded as concretely stipulating any obligation to renew, or the conditions or procedures for renewal of the contract. Accordingly, it was difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed under which the employment contract would automatically be renewed once certain conditions were satisfied. There was no evidentiary material to support the worker’s allegation that, at the time of initial hiring, a condition was presented that “employment would be possible for five years,” and there was no employment practice of extending contracts beyond the mandatory retirement age of 63.
The worker also clearly recognized that the employment contract would terminate as of 25 September 2025, did not submit the self-evaluation form that had previously been submitted in the evaluation procedures, and expressed an intention not to participate in the renewal evaluation. In light of these circumstances, the Commission held that the worker could not be regarded as having any expectation right regarding renewal of the employment contract, and that the employment relationship was lawfully terminated upon expiry of the contract period. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Dismissal During Probation (Refusal to Attend Work Following Workplace Bullying)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (refusal to renew after exceeding mandatory retirement age), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, labor law firm in Samseong-dong, labor law firm near Samseong Station, labor law firm in Gangnam
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Dismissal During Probation (Refusal to Attend Work Following Workplace Bullying)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (refusal to renew after exceeding mandatory retirement age) can be found under “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Refusal to Renew After Exceeding Mandatory Retirement Age).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
