Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Dual Contracts of 15 Hours per Week and 40 Hours per Week) – Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 407)
- Date2026/04/27 04:04
- Read 151
[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 (dual contracts of 15 hours per week and 40 hours per week).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10071 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issues in summary: (1) The employee appears to have recognized that the work performed for less than 15 hours per week and the work performed for 40 hours per week were different from each other; (2) regardless of the validity of the resignation letter, the substance of the employment contract before and after the resignation was different, and therefore it should be viewed that the employee entered into a new employment contract after resignation; (3) as of 2025, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who claimed unfair dismissal filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission held that the employer’s termination of employment due to the expiration of the fixed term of the employment contract was justified. The employee had previously worked in a part-time position of less than 15 hours per week, then submitted a resignation letter and entered into a new full-time employment contract for 40 hours per week. When the term of that contract expired and it was not renewed, the employee claimed that this constituted unfair dismissal.
The employee argued that, based on statements by the former center director, he believed the contract would continue to be renewed. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the employment contract entered into after the resignation was a separate fixed-term contract, that there was no legitimate expectation of renewal, and that termination upon expiration of the contract term was therefore justified.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether an employee who has submitted a resignation letter and then entered into a new employment contract of a different type (full-time, 40 hours per week) can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of that employment contract, and accordingly, whether termination of the employment relationship upon expiration of the contract term constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee recognized that the work performed for less than 15 hours per week and the work performed for 40 hours per week were different types of employment; that, regardless of the effectiveness of the resignation letter, the substance of the employment contract before and after the resignation was different, and thus it should be viewed that a new employment contract was entered into after the resignation; that neither the employment contract dated 1 January 2025 nor any related rules contained any basis for contract renewal or a legitimate expectation of renewal; that no separate practice of renewal had been established; and that the former center director’s remarks alone were insufficient to find that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties regarding “automatic renewal.”
On this basis, the Commission held that it was difficult to recognize a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract on the part of the employee. Under the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees and relevant case law, a legitimate expectation of renewal requires a “justifiable expectation” that the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions, based on a comprehensive consideration of various factors such as the wording of the contract, work rules, collective agreements, evaluations, and established practices. In this case, those requirements were not met.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the termination at issue was a termination due to expiration of the contract term and did not constitute unfair dismissal, and was therefore justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that where, after submitting a resignation letter under an existing employment relationship, a new contract is entered into with different working hours or a different form of work, this in substance marks the commencement of a “new fixed-term employment contract.” In addition, where the employment contract, work rules, and HR guidelines do not specify criteria or conditions for renewal or re-contracting, and there is no actual practice of renewal, a mere verbal statement or expectation based on a superior’s remarks will rarely suffice to establish a legitimate expectation of renewal.
To prevent similar disputes, at the time of the initial contract you should clearly confirm in writing the contract term, the possibility of renewal, and evaluation criteria, and should not rely solely on statements by former managers or colleagues but instead carefully review the actual rules and past practices.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where an employee moves from part-time work of less than 15 hours per week to full-time work of 40 hours per week, it is important to clearly document, in writing, whether the previous employment relationship has been severed and the term and conditions of the new contract, in order to reduce the potential for future disputes. If the employment contract, work rules, or internal regulations do not specify conditions and procedures for contract renewal, but in practice the company repeatedly re-contracts only with certain individuals, such ambiguous practices may give rise to disputes over legitimate expectation of renewal, and thus should be avoided.
In addition, where former center directors, team leaders, or other managers use expressions such as “you will be able to continue working,” employers should provide training so that such remarks are not misunderstood as granting a legitimate expectation of renewal contrary to the company’s official HR policies. When implementing personnel measures such as layoffs or terminations upon contract expiration, employers should consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to minimize the risk of disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The employee appears to have recognized that the work performed for less than 15 hours per week and the work performed for 40 hours per week were different from each other; (2) regardless of the validity of the resignation letter, the substance of the employment contract before and after the resignation was different, and therefore it should be viewed that the employee entered into a new employment contract after resignation; (3) the employment contract executed on 1 January 2025 contained no wording regarding contract renewal, and no provisions could be found in other internal rules, such as the institute’s regulations, that could serve as a basis for a legitimate expectation of renewal; (4) it was difficult to find that any practice of renewing employment contracts existed; and (5) the former center director’s remarks regarding contract renewal were, by themselves, insufficient to find that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that the employment contract would be renewed. In light of all of the above, the employee could not be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract, and therefore the employer’s termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract term was justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) The employee appears to have recognized that the work performed for less than 15 hours per week and the work performed for 40 hours per week were different from each other; (2) regardless of the validity of the resignation letter, the substance of the employment contract before and after the resignation was different, and therefore it should be viewed that the employee entered into a new employment contract after resignation; (3) the employment contract executed on 1 January 2025 contained no wording regarding contract renewal, and no provisions could be found in other internal rules, such as the institute’s regulations, that could serve as a basis for a legitimate expectation of renewal; (4) it was difficult to find that any practice of renewing employment contracts existed; and (5) the former center director’s remarks regarding contract renewal were, by themselves, insufficient to find that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that the employment contract would be renewed. In light of all of the above, the employee could not be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract, and therefore the employer’s termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract term was justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (dual contracts of 15 hours per week and 40 hours per week), 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Employee Status (Hostess·Stage Singer)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (dual contracts of 15 hours per week and 40 hours per week) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Dual Contracts of 15 Hours per Week and 40 Hours per Week).”
※ 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 (dual contracts of 15 hours per week and 40 hours per week).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025Buhae10071 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.02.11 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issues in summary: (1) The employee appears to have recognized that the work performed for less than 15 hours per week and the work performed for 40 hours per week were different from each other; (2) regardless of the validity of the resignation letter, the substance of the employment contract before and after the resignation was different, and therefore it should be viewed that the employee entered into a new employment contract after resignation; (3) as of 2025, …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who claimed unfair dismissal filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission held that the employer’s termination of employment due to the expiration of the fixed term of the employment contract was justified. The employee had previously worked in a part-time position of less than 15 hours per week, then submitted a resignation letter and entered into a new full-time employment contract for 40 hours per week. When the term of that contract expired and it was not renewed, the employee claimed that this constituted unfair dismissal.
The employee argued that, based on statements by the former center director, he believed the contract would continue to be renewed. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the employment contract entered into after the resignation was a separate fixed-term contract, that there was no legitimate expectation of renewal, and that termination upon expiration of the contract term was therefore justified.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether an employee who has submitted a resignation letter and then entered into a new employment contract of a different type (full-time, 40 hours per week) can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of that employment contract, and accordingly, whether termination of the employment relationship upon expiration of the contract term constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee recognized that the work performed for less than 15 hours per week and the work performed for 40 hours per week were different types of employment; that, regardless of the effectiveness of the resignation letter, the substance of the employment contract before and after the resignation was different, and thus it should be viewed that a new employment contract was entered into after the resignation; that neither the employment contract dated 1 January 2025 nor any related rules contained any basis for contract renewal or a legitimate expectation of renewal; that no separate practice of renewal had been established; and that the former center director’s remarks alone were insufficient to find that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties regarding “automatic renewal.”
On this basis, the Commission held that it was difficult to recognize a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract on the part of the employee. Under the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees and relevant case law, a legitimate expectation of renewal requires a “justifiable expectation” that the contract will be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions, based on a comprehensive consideration of various factors such as the wording of the contract, work rules, collective agreements, evaluations, and established practices. In this case, those requirements were not met.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the termination at issue was a termination due to expiration of the contract term and did not constitute unfair dismissal, and was therefore justified.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it should be noted that where, after submitting a resignation letter under an existing employment relationship, a new contract is entered into with different working hours or a different form of work, this in substance marks the commencement of a “new fixed-term employment contract.” In addition, where the employment contract, work rules, and HR guidelines do not specify criteria or conditions for renewal or re-contracting, and there is no actual practice of renewal, a mere verbal statement or expectation based on a superior’s remarks will rarely suffice to establish a legitimate expectation of renewal.
To prevent similar disputes, at the time of the initial contract you should clearly confirm in writing the contract term, the possibility of renewal, and evaluation criteria, and should not rely solely on statements by former managers or colleagues but instead carefully review the actual rules and past practices.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, where an employee moves from part-time work of less than 15 hours per week to full-time work of 40 hours per week, it is important to clearly document, in writing, whether the previous employment relationship has been severed and the term and conditions of the new contract, in order to reduce the potential for future disputes. If the employment contract, work rules, or internal regulations do not specify conditions and procedures for contract renewal, but in practice the company repeatedly re-contracts only with certain individuals, such ambiguous practices may give rise to disputes over legitimate expectation of renewal, and thus should be avoided.
In addition, where former center directors, team leaders, or other managers use expressions such as “you will be able to continue working,” employers should provide training so that such remarks are not misunderstood as granting a legitimate expectation of renewal contrary to the company’s official HR policies. When implementing personnel measures such as layoffs or terminations upon contract expiration, employers should consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& to minimize the risk of disputes before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
(1) The employee appears to have recognized that the work performed for less than 15 hours per week and the work performed for 40 hours per week were different from each other; (2) regardless of the validity of the resignation letter, the substance of the employment contract before and after the resignation was different, and therefore it should be viewed that the employee entered into a new employment contract after resignation; (3) the employment contract executed on 1 January 2025 contained no wording regarding contract renewal, and no provisions could be found in other internal rules, such as the institute’s regulations, that could serve as a basis for a legitimate expectation of renewal; (4) it was difficult to find that any practice of renewing employment contracts existed; and (5) the former center director’s remarks regarding contract renewal were, by themselves, insufficient to find that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that the employment contract would be renewed. In light of all of the above, the employee could not be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract, and therefore the employer’s termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract term was justified.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(1) The employee appears to have recognized that the work performed for less than 15 hours per week and the work performed for 40 hours per week were different from each other; (2) regardless of the validity of the resignation letter, the substance of the employment contract before and after the resignation was different, and therefore it should be viewed that the employee entered into a new employment contract after resignation; (3) the employment contract executed on 1 January 2025 contained no wording regarding contract renewal, and no provisions could be found in other internal rules, such as the institute’s regulations, that could serve as a basis for a legitimate expectation of renewal; (4) it was difficult to find that any practice of renewing employment contracts existed; and (5) the former center director’s remarks regarding contract renewal were, by themselves, insufficient to find that a relationship of trust had been formed between the parties that the employment contract would be renewed. In light of all of the above, the employee could not be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract, and therefore the employer’s termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract term was justified. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Initial decision upheld
- “‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case result: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (dual contracts of 15 hours per week and 40 hours per week), 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Employee Status (Hostess·Stage Singer)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (dual contracts of 15 hours per week and 40 hours per week) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Dual Contracts of 15 Hours per Week and 40 Hours per Week).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
