Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Existence of Dismissal (Acceptance of Contract Term Extension)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 438)
- Date2026/05/08 04:10
- Read 114
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (acceptance of contract term extension).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026 Unfair Dismissal 131 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.27 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee argued that the employer’s withdrawal of dismissal was merely an apology, and that her subsequent attendance at the hospital did not constitute consent to the withdrawal of dismissal. However, (i) the employee accepted the employer’s proposal on December 27, 2025, to extend the contract period by one month after the expiry of the contract term so that she could look for a new job, and …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case before the Labor Relations Commission concerned a fixed-term employee working at a hospital who had accepted a proposal to extend her contract for one month after the original expiry date. The issue was whether a dismissal occurred in the course of her applying for annual leave on a particular date to attend a job interview. The employee treated the employer’s remarks as an unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, while the employer argued that the employment contract remained in force pursuant to the agreement to extend the contract term.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When a fixed-term employee whose contract has been extended claims that the employer’s remarks made in the course of a dispute over the use of annual leave constitute a dismissal, whether, in light of those remarks and the subsequent circumstances as a whole, there exists a ‘unilateral dismissal’ amounting to unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer, on December 27, 2025, after the expiry of the contract term, proposed to extend the contract by one month so that the employee could seek new employment, and the employee accepted this proposal; that in a conversation on December 29, 2025 regarding the use of annual leave, the employer said, “We will treat the contract as having ended,” but then withdrew this statement, and the employee merely responded that she would “regard it as an unfair dismissal”; that despite this, the employee reported to work and left work as normal on December 30, and herself acknowledged that she used annual leave on December 31; and that the employer processed the loss of the employee’s insured status under employment insurance as of January 28, 2026, the expiry date reflecting the one‑month extension.
In light of the above, the panel held that it was difficult to find that there had been a unilateral dismissal by the employer on December 29, 2025, and that the employment relationship should be regarded as having continued pursuant to the agreement to extend the contract term. Accordingly, the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal could not be accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to carefully organize whether there was a unilateral expression of intent by the employer to terminate the employment contract, and whether the employee’s actual work patterns thereafter—such as attendance at work, use of annual leave, and receipt of wages—are consistent with conduct premised on dismissal. Where the employee continues to report to work despite a withdrawal of dismissal, or where the date of loss of employment insurance coverage is reported as the contract expiry date, the accumulation of such circumstances creates a substantial possibility that the Labor Relations Commission will find that “no dismissal occurred.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, all expressions of intent relating to the termination of the employment relationship—such as extension of the contract term, refusal to renew, and notice of contract expiry—should, as far as possible, be clearly documented in writing. In particular, if expressions such as “Let’s end this” or “We will treat the contract as terminated” are used in the heat of an emotional conversation, it is essential to promptly set out in writing or by message whether such statements are withdrawn and how the contractual relationship will be maintained going forward, in order to prevent unfair dismissal disputes.
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission reconfirms that the core issues in determining the existence of unfair dismissal are “the existence of a unilateral expression of intent to dismiss” and “the actual operation of the employment relationship thereafter.” In similar cases, both employees and employers are advised to establish their initial response strategies with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that the employer’s withdrawal of dismissal was merely an apology, and that her subsequent attendance at the hospital did not constitute consent to the withdrawal of dismissal. However, (i) the employee accepted the employer’s proposal of December 27, 2025, to extend the contract term by one month after the expiry of the contract, without renewing the contract, so that she could seek new employment; (ii) although there were patients with appointments, when the employee mentioned to the employer on December 29, 2025 that she wished to use annual leave for her job interview, the employer stated that the contract would be treated as having ended as of December 27, 2025, but later withdrew this statement, and the employee responded that she would regard this as an unfair dismissal; (iii) while asserting that she had been dismissed, the employee nonetheless reported to the hospital and left work as normal on December 30, 2025, and it was confirmed that, in her complaint to the Goyang Branch Office, she herself acknowledged having used annual leave on December 31, 2025; and (iv) when reporting the loss of the employee’s employment insurance coverage, the employer reported January 28, 2026—the expiry date reflecting the one‑month extension of the job‑seeking period—as the date of loss.
In light of the foregoing, it was concluded that there was no unilateral dismissal by the employer on December 29, 2025.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee argued that the employer’s withdrawal of dismissal was merely an apology, and that her subsequent attendance at the hospital did not constitute consent to the withdrawal of dismissal. However, (i) the employee accepted the employer’s proposal of December 27, 2025, to extend the contract term by one month after the expiry of the contract, without renewing the contract, so that she could seek new employment; (ii) although there were patients with appointments, when the employee mentioned to the employer on December 29, 2025 that she wished to use annual leave for her job interview, the employer stated that the contract would be treated as having ended as of December 27, 2025, but later withdrew this statement, and the employee responded that she would regard this as an unfair dismissal; (iii) while asserting that she had been dismissed, the employee nonetheless reported to the hospital and left work as normal on December 30, 2025, and it was confirmed that, in her complaint to the Goyang Branch Office, she herself acknowledged having used annual leave on December 31, 2025; and (iv) when reporting the loss of the employee’s employment insurance coverage, the employer reported January 28, 2026—the expiry date reflecting the one‑month extension of the job‑seeking period—as the date of loss.
Taken together, these circumstances led to the conclusion that there was no unilateral dismissal by the employer on December 29, 2025. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Inducement · Unauthorised Absence)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (acceptance of contract term extension), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Inducement · Unauthorised Absence)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (acceptance of contract term extension) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Acceptance of Contract Term Extension).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (acceptance of contract term extension).”
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026 Unfair Dismissal 131 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.27 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues: The employee argued that the employer’s withdrawal of dismissal was merely an apology, and that her subsequent attendance at the hospital did not constitute consent to the withdrawal of dismissal. However, (i) the employee accepted the employer’s proposal on December 27, 2025, to extend the contract period by one month after the expiry of the contract term so that she could look for a new job, and …
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case before the Labor Relations Commission concerned a fixed-term employee working at a hospital who had accepted a proposal to extend her contract for one month after the original expiry date. The issue was whether a dismissal occurred in the course of her applying for annual leave on a particular date to attend a job interview. The employee treated the employer’s remarks as an unfair dismissal and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, while the employer argued that the employment contract remained in force pursuant to the agreement to extend the contract term.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“When a fixed-term employee whose contract has been extended claims that the employer’s remarks made in the course of a dispute over the use of annual leave constitute a dismissal, whether, in light of those remarks and the subsequent circumstances as a whole, there exists a ‘unilateral dismissal’ amounting to unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employer, on December 27, 2025, after the expiry of the contract term, proposed to extend the contract by one month so that the employee could seek new employment, and the employee accepted this proposal; that in a conversation on December 29, 2025 regarding the use of annual leave, the employer said, “We will treat the contract as having ended,” but then withdrew this statement, and the employee merely responded that she would “regard it as an unfair dismissal”; that despite this, the employee reported to work and left work as normal on December 30, and herself acknowledged that she used annual leave on December 31; and that the employer processed the loss of the employee’s insured status under employment insurance as of January 28, 2026, the expiry date reflecting the one‑month extension.
In light of the above, the panel held that it was difficult to find that there had been a unilateral dismissal by the employer on December 29, 2025, and that the employment relationship should be regarded as having continued pursuant to the agreement to extend the contract term. Accordingly, the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal could not be accepted.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For an employee to assert unfair dismissal, it is necessary to carefully organize whether there was a unilateral expression of intent by the employer to terminate the employment contract, and whether the employee’s actual work patterns thereafter—such as attendance at work, use of annual leave, and receipt of wages—are consistent with conduct premised on dismissal. Where the employee continues to report to work despite a withdrawal of dismissal, or where the date of loss of employment insurance coverage is reported as the contract expiry date, the accumulation of such circumstances creates a substantial possibility that the Labor Relations Commission will find that “no dismissal occurred.”
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, all expressions of intent relating to the termination of the employment relationship—such as extension of the contract term, refusal to renew, and notice of contract expiry—should, as far as possible, be clearly documented in writing. In particular, if expressions such as “Let’s end this” or “We will treat the contract as terminated” are used in the heat of an emotional conversation, it is essential to promptly set out in writing or by message whether such statements are withdrawn and how the contractual relationship will be maintained going forward, in order to prevent unfair dismissal disputes.
This decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission reconfirms that the core issues in determining the existence of unfair dismissal are “the existence of a unilateral expression of intent to dismiss” and “the actual operation of the employment relationship thereafter.” In similar cases, both employees and employers are advised to establish their initial response strategies with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that the employer’s withdrawal of dismissal was merely an apology, and that her subsequent attendance at the hospital did not constitute consent to the withdrawal of dismissal. However, (i) the employee accepted the employer’s proposal of December 27, 2025, to extend the contract term by one month after the expiry of the contract, without renewing the contract, so that she could seek new employment; (ii) although there were patients with appointments, when the employee mentioned to the employer on December 29, 2025 that she wished to use annual leave for her job interview, the employer stated that the contract would be treated as having ended as of December 27, 2025, but later withdrew this statement, and the employee responded that she would regard this as an unfair dismissal; (iii) while asserting that she had been dismissed, the employee nonetheless reported to the hospital and left work as normal on December 30, 2025, and it was confirmed that, in her complaint to the Goyang Branch Office, she herself acknowledged having used annual leave on December 31, 2025; and (iv) when reporting the loss of the employee’s employment insurance coverage, the employer reported January 28, 2026—the expiry date reflecting the one‑month extension of the job‑seeking period—as the date of loss.
In light of the foregoing, it was concluded that there was no unilateral dismissal by the employer on December 29, 2025.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee argued that the employer’s withdrawal of dismissal was merely an apology, and that her subsequent attendance at the hospital did not constitute consent to the withdrawal of dismissal. However, (i) the employee accepted the employer’s proposal of December 27, 2025, to extend the contract term by one month after the expiry of the contract, without renewing the contract, so that she could seek new employment; (ii) although there were patients with appointments, when the employee mentioned to the employer on December 29, 2025 that she wished to use annual leave for her job interview, the employer stated that the contract would be treated as having ended as of December 27, 2025, but later withdrew this statement, and the employee responded that she would regard this as an unfair dismissal; (iii) while asserting that she had been dismissed, the employee nonetheless reported to the hospital and left work as normal on December 30, 2025, and it was confirmed that, in her complaint to the Goyang Branch Office, she herself acknowledged having used annual leave on December 31, 2025; and (iv) when reporting the loss of the employee’s employment insurance coverage, the employer reported January 28, 2026—the expiry date reflecting the one‑month extension of the job‑seeking period—as the date of loss.
Taken together, these circumstances led to the conclusion that there was no unilateral dismissal by the employer on December 29, 2025. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Inducement · Unauthorised Absence)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remarks in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (acceptance of contract term extension), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ The previous article, “‘Existence of Dismissal (Resignation Inducement · Unauthorised Absence)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (acceptance of contract term extension) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (Acceptance of Contract Term Extension).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
