Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Extinction of Remedial Interest (Fixed-Term 5-Month Contract)” (Unfair Dismissal 425)
- Date2026/05/04 20:03
- Read 133
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of remedial interest (fixed-term 5‑month contract).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2026Buhae254 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Date of decision: 2026.04.01 · Outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary: ① Between the employee and the employer, in 2025 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was handled by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. The employee entered into a fixed-term employment contract with the employer for the period from 28 July 2025 to 31 December 2025 and worked accordingly, then claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The employee filed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on 13 January 2026, after the contract had already expired, and the Commission focused its determination in this case on whether remedial interest existed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “remedial interest” exists to obtain an order for remedy for unfair dismissal from the Labor Relations Commission where an employee has entered into a fixed-term employment contract with the employer and files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal after the contractual term has already expired.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that there was a written employment contract between the employee and the employer specifying the contract period as from 28 July 2025 to 31 December 2025; that, at the hearing, the employee himself stated that he had requested that the contract period be set at five months and that there had been no separate agreement or mention regarding the period after the end of the contract; and that the employee actually filed the application for remedy on 13 January 2026, which was already after the expiry of the contract period.
In light of these facts, the panel held that, at the time the employee filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship had already terminated due to expiry of the contract period and the employee had lost his employee status; that an order by the Labor Relations Commission under the Labor Standards Act for reinstatement to the original position and payment of wages in lieu of back pay, premised on restoration of employee status, was no longer realistically possible; and that monetary interests such as wages during the dismissal period or calculation of severance pay could be resolved through civil litigation, so there was no longer any need to continue the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial procedure. On this basis, the panel found that the remedial interest in this application had extinguished.
Even if the dismissal in this case were to be contested as unfair, the panel held that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be dismissed on the ground that there was no interest in obtaining a remedial order through the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee enters into a fixed-term employment contract (e.g., a 5‑month contract), it should be noted that, as a rule, the employment relationship automatically terminates upon expiry of the contract period even without a separate notice of dismissal. To assert unfair dismissal, the employee must prove that the dismissal occurred while time remained on the contract, or that, due to repeated renewals or established practice, the employee in substance qualifies as a worker with no fixed term or can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal. In addition, at the time of filing the application for remedy, the employee must still have employee status, or the extension of such status must be at issue, for remedial interest to be recognized.
Furthermore, if an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is filed after the contract period has already expired, the Labor Relations Commission may, even if the dismissal was unfair, reject or dismiss the application on the ground of “extinction of remedial interest.” In such a case, issues such as wages during the dismissal period or damages must be pursued in separate civil proceedings, which employees should bear in mind.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly state the contract period in the employment contract and to manage actual operations in accordance with that wording. If short-term fixed-term employment contracts are repeatedly renewed over a long period so that the term clause appears merely formal, or if the procedures and criteria for reappointment/renewal create a structure that grants an expectation of renewal, the matter may escalate into an issue of unfair dismissal or refusal to renew, rather than simple expiry of the contract term. Employers should therefore exercise caution.
In addition, when terminating an employment relationship due to redundancy (collective dismissal) or expiry of the contract term, employers should secure materials that can objectively substantiate the timing and reasons for termination, in order to reduce future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts regarding remedial interest and the nature of the contract (fixed-term vs. open-ended). In proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, the possibility of restoring employee status is key; thus, when using fixed-term employees, consistent management of contract periods and renewal practices is critically important for preventing disputes.
This decision is practically significant in that it reconfirms that remedies for unfair dismissal through the Labor Relations Commission presuppose the substantive effect of “restoration of employee status,” and that, in the context of fixed-term employment relationships, remedial interest in principle extinguishes after expiry of the contract period. Those who wish to utilize the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial procedures should carefully review the type of contract, contract period, and timing of the application from the initial stage of the case.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the following: ① the fact that the employee and the employer entered into a written employment contract specifying the contract period as from 28 July 2025 to 31 December 2025; ② the fact that, at the hearing, the employee stated that, with respect to the contents of the employment contract, he had requested that the contract period be set at five months and that he had not made any separate mention regarding the period after termination of the employment relationship; and ③ the fact that the employee filed the application for remedy on 13 January 2026, it is reasonable to view that, at the time the employee filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship with the employer had already ended and the application was filed after the employee had ceased to have employee status, so that the interest in obtaining a remedial order through the Labor Relations Commission had extinguished. Therefore, there is no remedial interest in the application.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
In light of the following: ① the fact that the employee and the employer entered into a written employment contract specifying the contract period as from 28 July 2025 to 31 December 2025; ② the fact that, at the hearing, the employee stated that, with respect to the contents of the employment contract, he had requested that the contract period be set at five months and that he had not made any separate mention regarding the period after termination of the employment relationship; and ③ the fact that the employee filed the application for remedy on 13 January 2026, it is reasonable to view that, at the time the employee filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship with the employer had already ended and the application was filed after the employee had ceased to have employee status, so that the interest in obtaining a remedial order through the Labor Relations Commission had extinguished. Therefore, there is no remedial interest in the application. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of remedial interest (fixed-term 5‑month contract), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, others, 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, “‘Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk Message)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of remedial interest (fixed-term 5‑month contract) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Remedial Interest (Fixed-Term 5‑Month Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of remedial interest (fixed-term 5‑month contract).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case: 2026Buhae254 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Date of decision: 2026.04.01 · Outcome: Dismissed
Key issue summary: ① Between the employee and the employer, in 2025 …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This application for remedy for unfair dismissal was handled by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. The employee entered into a fixed-term employment contract with the employer for the period from 28 July 2025 to 31 December 2025 and worked accordingly, then claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The employee filed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on 13 January 2026, after the contract had already expired, and the Commission focused its determination in this case on whether remedial interest existed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether “remedial interest” exists to obtain an order for remedy for unfair dismissal from the Labor Relations Commission where an employee has entered into a fixed-term employment contract with the employer and files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal after the contractual term has already expired.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that there was a written employment contract between the employee and the employer specifying the contract period as from 28 July 2025 to 31 December 2025; that, at the hearing, the employee himself stated that he had requested that the contract period be set at five months and that there had been no separate agreement or mention regarding the period after the end of the contract; and that the employee actually filed the application for remedy on 13 January 2026, which was already after the expiry of the contract period.
In light of these facts, the panel held that, at the time the employee filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship had already terminated due to expiry of the contract period and the employee had lost his employee status; that an order by the Labor Relations Commission under the Labor Standards Act for reinstatement to the original position and payment of wages in lieu of back pay, premised on restoration of employee status, was no longer realistically possible; and that monetary interests such as wages during the dismissal period or calculation of severance pay could be resolved through civil litigation, so there was no longer any need to continue the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial procedure. On this basis, the panel found that the remedial interest in this application had extinguished.
Even if the dismissal in this case were to be contested as unfair, the panel held that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal must be dismissed on the ground that there was no interest in obtaining a remedial order through the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee enters into a fixed-term employment contract (e.g., a 5‑month contract), it should be noted that, as a rule, the employment relationship automatically terminates upon expiry of the contract period even without a separate notice of dismissal. To assert unfair dismissal, the employee must prove that the dismissal occurred while time remained on the contract, or that, due to repeated renewals or established practice, the employee in substance qualifies as a worker with no fixed term or can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal. In addition, at the time of filing the application for remedy, the employee must still have employee status, or the extension of such status must be at issue, for remedial interest to be recognized.
Furthermore, if an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is filed after the contract period has already expired, the Labor Relations Commission may, even if the dismissal was unfair, reject or dismiss the application on the ground of “extinction of remedial interest.” In such a case, issues such as wages during the dismissal period or damages must be pursued in separate civil proceedings, which employees should bear in mind.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly state the contract period in the employment contract and to manage actual operations in accordance with that wording. If short-term fixed-term employment contracts are repeatedly renewed over a long period so that the term clause appears merely formal, or if the procedures and criteria for reappointment/renewal create a structure that grants an expectation of renewal, the matter may escalate into an issue of unfair dismissal or refusal to renew, rather than simple expiry of the contract term. Employers should therefore exercise caution.
In addition, when terminating an employment relationship due to redundancy (collective dismissal) or expiry of the contract term, employers should secure materials that can objectively substantiate the timing and reasons for termination, in order to reduce future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts regarding remedial interest and the nature of the contract (fixed-term vs. open-ended). In proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission, the possibility of restoring employee status is key; thus, when using fixed-term employees, consistent management of contract periods and renewal practices is critically important for preventing disputes.
This decision is practically significant in that it reconfirms that remedies for unfair dismissal through the Labor Relations Commission presuppose the substantive effect of “restoration of employee status,” and that, in the context of fixed-term employment relationships, remedial interest in principle extinguishes after expiry of the contract period. Those who wish to utilize the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial procedures should carefully review the type of contract, contract period, and timing of the application from the initial stage of the case.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the following: ① the fact that the employee and the employer entered into a written employment contract specifying the contract period as from 28 July 2025 to 31 December 2025; ② the fact that, at the hearing, the employee stated that, with respect to the contents of the employment contract, he had requested that the contract period be set at five months and that he had not made any separate mention regarding the period after termination of the employment relationship; and ③ the fact that the employee filed the application for remedy on 13 January 2026, it is reasonable to view that, at the time the employee filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship with the employer had already ended and the application was filed after the employee had ceased to have employee status, so that the interest in obtaining a remedial order through the Labor Relations Commission had extinguished. Therefore, there is no remedial interest in the application.
3. Summary of Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
In light of the following: ① the fact that the employee and the employer entered into a written employment contract specifying the contract period as from 28 July 2025 to 31 December 2025; ② the fact that, at the hearing, the employee stated that, with respect to the contents of the employment contract, he had requested that the contract period be set at five months and that he had not made any separate mention regarding the period after termination of the employment relationship; and ③ the fact that the employee filed the application for remedy on 13 January 2026, it is reasonable to view that, at the time the employee filed the application for remedy, the employment relationship with the employer had already ended and the application was filed after the employee had ceased to have employee status, so that the interest in obtaining a remedial order through the Labor Relations Commission had extinguished. Therefore, there is no remedial interest in the application. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of remedial interest (fixed-term 5‑month contract), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, others, 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, “‘Existence of Dismissal (KakaoTalk Message)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of remedial interest (fixed-term 5‑month contract) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Remedial Interest (Fixed-Term 5‑Month Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
