Corporate trends / Performance record
“Reasonableness of Refusal to Renew (Abuse and Neglect of Persons with Severe Disabilities)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 389)
- Date2026/04/21 04:05
- Read 173
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reasonableness of refusal to renew (abuse and neglect of persons with severe disabilities).”
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025부해9106 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employment contract constitutes a contract without a fixed term.
The employee entered into fixed-term employment contracts on two occasions, and the authenticity of the contracts is acknowledged as the employee personally signed them. There is no objective evidence sufficient to negate the effect of the wording of the contracts. Accordingly, the employee is deemed to be a fixed-term employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a fixed-term employee working as a care worker for persons with severe disabilities who, upon being refused renewal at the expiry of the contract term, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming that the refusal constituted unfair dismissal. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application after comprehensively considering the nature of the employment contract, whether a legitimate expectation of renewal (갱신기대권) had arisen, and the circumstances surrounding the abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities. In doing so, the Commission broadly examined the legal principles governing unfair dismissal and the expectation of renewal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where a fixed-term employee working as a care worker for persons with severe disabilities has a legitimate ‘expectation of renewal’ of the employment contract, does the employer’s refusal to renew, in a situation where abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities has been established, constitute unfair dismissal, or is it a justified refusal to renew based on reasonable grounds?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case held that the employee is a fixed-term employee, not an employee without a fixed term, given that the employee entered into written employment contracts specifying the contract period on two occasions and personally signed them, and there is no objective material capable of overturning the effect of the wording of the contracts.
Furthermore, the panel found that an expectation of renewal had arisen for the employee, based on the facts that the employment contracts expressly stated that “in the absence of special reasons, the one-year contract may be extended,” that the work of caring for persons with severe disabilities is continuous and essential, and that the employer had operated its personnel management on the premise that renewal was possible.
However, the panel also found that the supervisory authority’s investigation confirmed that the employee had abused and neglected persons with disabilities; that, as a result, it had become difficult to continue the business itself due to cancellation of designation and termination of consignment of the relevant care institution; and that, in the context of care services for persons with severe disabilities, which are strongly public in nature, protection of service users is the paramount value. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that there were objective and reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Fixed-term employees should understand that, once an expectation of renewal is formed through the employment contract, work rules, or established practice, they may receive protection similar to that afforded in cases of unfair dismissal. However, in work such as care for persons with severe disabilities, where public interest and the protection of vulnerable groups are central, serious misconduct such as abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities can be strongly recognized not only as grounds for dismissal but also as grounds for refusal to renew a contract.
In addition, where the contract period is specified in the contract and the employee has personally signed it, very strong objective evidence—such as long-term repeated renewals or a practice of automatic extension—is required to overturn the wording of the contract.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to recognize in advance that an expectation of renewal may arise for fixed-term employees, and to clearly stipulate in the employment contracts and work rules the criteria and procedures for renewal, as well as exceptions (particularly abuse, neglect, and other serious misconduct).
In public-interest service areas such as care for persons with disabilities, employers should systematize internal procedures for investigating, reporting, and responding to abuse and neglect, and manage matters so that the grounds for refusal to renew based on such results are specifically recorded and can be proven.
Moreover, even where an expectation of renewal is recognized, refusal to renew will only be justified if the employee’s culpable conduct and the resulting circumstances—such as cancellation of institutional designation or termination of consignment, making continuation of the business impossible—are objectively established. Accordingly, employers should systematically secure and retain materials such as supervisory authority investigation results, written statements of circumstances, and interview records.
In this type of case, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, in determining whether there has been unfair dismissal, do not stop at the “formal contract term,” but consider both the existence of an expectation of renewal and the reasonableness of the grounds for refusal to renew. On that premise, it is advisable for both employees and employers to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to organize contract structures and evidence management in advance.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employment contract constitutes a contract without a fixed term
The employee entered into fixed-term employment contracts on two occasions, and the authenticity of the contracts is acknowledged as the employee personally signed them. There is no objective evidence sufficient to negate the effect of the wording of the contracts. Accordingly, the employee is deemed to be a fixed-term employee.
B. Whether an expectation of renewal exists
The employment contracts expressly stated that, in the absence of special reasons, the one-year contract may be extended; the employee’s work is continuous and essential; and the employer recognized the expectation of renewal. In light of these circumstances, an expectation of renewal is recognized.
C. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
The employee, a care worker for persons with severe disabilities, was found, through an investigation by the supervisory authority, to have engaged in “abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities.” As a result of the employee’s conduct, the employer could no longer continue the business due to cancellation of designation of the care institution for persons with severe disabilities and termination of business consignment. Taking these circumstances together, there are reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employment contract constitutes a contract without a fixed term
The employee entered into fixed-term employment contracts on two occasions, and the authenticity of the contracts is acknowledged as the employee personally signed them. There is no objective evidence sufficient to negate the effect of the wording of the contracts. Accordingly, the employee is deemed to be a fixed-term employee.
B. Whether an expectation of renewal exists
The employment contracts expressly stated that, in the absence of special reasons, the one-year contract may be extended; the employee’s work is continuous and essential; and the employer recognized the expectation of renewal. In light of these circumstances, an expectation of renewal is recognized.
C. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
The employee, a care worker for persons with severe disabilities, was found, through an investigation by the supervisory authority, to have engaged in “abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities.” As a result of the employee’s conduct, the employer could no longer continue the business due to cancellation of designation of the care institution for persons with severe disabilities and termination of business consignment. Taking these circumstances together, there are reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of refusal to renew (abuse and neglect of persons with severe disabilities), refusal to renew fixed-term contracts, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work instructions, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measures (Internet · Agency Sales)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to reasonableness of refusal to renew (abuse and neglect of persons with severe disabilities) can be viewed together in the “Reasonableness of Refusal to Renew (Abuse and Neglect of Persons with Severe Disabilities) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reasonableness of refusal to renew (abuse and neglect of persons with severe disabilities).”
Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2025부해9106 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.02.12 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employment contract constitutes a contract without a fixed term.
The employee entered into fixed-term employment contracts on two occasions, and the authenticity of the contracts is acknowledged as the employee personally signed them. There is no objective evidence sufficient to negate the effect of the wording of the contracts. Accordingly, the employee is deemed to be a fixed-term employee.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns a fixed-term employee working as a care worker for persons with severe disabilities who, upon being refused renewal at the expiry of the contract term, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission claiming that the refusal constituted unfair dismissal. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application after comprehensively considering the nature of the employment contract, whether a legitimate expectation of renewal (갱신기대권) had arisen, and the circumstances surrounding the abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities. In doing so, the Commission broadly examined the legal principles governing unfair dismissal and the expectation of renewal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“In circumstances where a fixed-term employee working as a care worker for persons with severe disabilities has a legitimate ‘expectation of renewal’ of the employment contract, does the employer’s refusal to renew, in a situation where abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities has been established, constitute unfair dismissal, or is it a justified refusal to renew based on reasonable grounds?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case held that the employee is a fixed-term employee, not an employee without a fixed term, given that the employee entered into written employment contracts specifying the contract period on two occasions and personally signed them, and there is no objective material capable of overturning the effect of the wording of the contracts.
Furthermore, the panel found that an expectation of renewal had arisen for the employee, based on the facts that the employment contracts expressly stated that “in the absence of special reasons, the one-year contract may be extended,” that the work of caring for persons with severe disabilities is continuous and essential, and that the employer had operated its personnel management on the premise that renewal was possible.
However, the panel also found that the supervisory authority’s investigation confirmed that the employee had abused and neglected persons with disabilities; that, as a result, it had become difficult to continue the business itself due to cancellation of designation and termination of consignment of the relevant care institution; and that, in the context of care services for persons with severe disabilities, which are strongly public in nature, protection of service users is the paramount value. Taking all of this into account, the panel held that there were objective and reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Fixed-term employees should understand that, once an expectation of renewal is formed through the employment contract, work rules, or established practice, they may receive protection similar to that afforded in cases of unfair dismissal. However, in work such as care for persons with severe disabilities, where public interest and the protection of vulnerable groups are central, serious misconduct such as abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities can be strongly recognized not only as grounds for dismissal but also as grounds for refusal to renew a contract.
In addition, where the contract period is specified in the contract and the employee has personally signed it, very strong objective evidence—such as long-term repeated renewals or a practice of automatic extension—is required to overturn the wording of the contract.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important to recognize in advance that an expectation of renewal may arise for fixed-term employees, and to clearly stipulate in the employment contracts and work rules the criteria and procedures for renewal, as well as exceptions (particularly abuse, neglect, and other serious misconduct).
In public-interest service areas such as care for persons with disabilities, employers should systematize internal procedures for investigating, reporting, and responding to abuse and neglect, and manage matters so that the grounds for refusal to renew based on such results are specifically recorded and can be proven.
Moreover, even where an expectation of renewal is recognized, refusal to renew will only be justified if the employee’s culpable conduct and the resulting circumstances—such as cancellation of institutional designation or termination of consignment, making continuation of the business impossible—are objectively established. Accordingly, employers should systematically secure and retain materials such as supervisory authority investigation results, written statements of circumstances, and interview records.
In this type of case, the Labor Relations Commission and the courts, in determining whether there has been unfair dismissal, do not stop at the “formal contract term,” but consider both the existence of an expectation of renewal and the reasonableness of the grounds for refusal to renew. On that premise, it is advisable for both employees and employers to seek assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to organize contract structures and evidence management in advance.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employment contract constitutes a contract without a fixed term
The employee entered into fixed-term employment contracts on two occasions, and the authenticity of the contracts is acknowledged as the employee personally signed them. There is no objective evidence sufficient to negate the effect of the wording of the contracts. Accordingly, the employee is deemed to be a fixed-term employee.
B. Whether an expectation of renewal exists
The employment contracts expressly stated that, in the absence of special reasons, the one-year contract may be extended; the employee’s work is continuous and essential; and the employer recognized the expectation of renewal. In light of these circumstances, an expectation of renewal is recognized.
C. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
The employee, a care worker for persons with severe disabilities, was found, through an investigation by the supervisory authority, to have engaged in “abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities.” As a result of the employee’s conduct, the employer could no longer continue the business due to cancellation of designation of the care institution for persons with severe disabilities and termination of business consignment. Taking these circumstances together, there are reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employment contract constitutes a contract without a fixed term
The employee entered into fixed-term employment contracts on two occasions, and the authenticity of the contracts is acknowledged as the employee personally signed them. There is no objective evidence sufficient to negate the effect of the wording of the contracts. Accordingly, the employee is deemed to be a fixed-term employee.
B. Whether an expectation of renewal exists
The employment contracts expressly stated that, in the absence of special reasons, the one-year contract may be extended; the employee’s work is continuous and essential; and the employer recognized the expectation of renewal. In light of these circumstances, an expectation of renewal is recognized.
C. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusal to renew
The employee, a care worker for persons with severe disabilities, was found, through an investigation by the supervisory authority, to have engaged in “abuse and neglect of persons with disabilities.” As a result of the employee’s conduct, the employer could no longer continue the business due to cancellation of designation of the care institution for persons with severe disabilities and termination of business consignment. Taking these circumstances together, there are reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reasonableness of refusal to renew (abuse and neglect of persons with severe disabilities), refusal to renew fixed-term contracts, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work instructions, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measures (Internet · Agency Sales)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to reasonableness of refusal to renew (abuse and neglect of persons with severe disabilities) can be viewed together in the “Reasonableness of Refusal to Renew (Abuse and Neglect of Persons with Severe Disabilities) Related Decisions” list.
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
