Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Conversion to an Indefinite-Term Contract (Repeatedly Renewed Fixed-Term Employment) (Unfair Dismissal 443)
- Date2026/05/11 04:04
- Read 109
This case involves a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “conversion to an indefinite-term contract (repeatedly renewed fixed-term employment).”
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal relief case that concluded with a full win for the employee on the issue of “conversion to an indefinite-term contract (repeatedly renewed fixed-term employment).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026BuHae57 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
Date of decision: 2026.03.26 · Result: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employee in this case had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment. The employee performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for more than two consecutive years while repeatedly entering into employment contracts multiple times; the gaps between contracts were extremely short; and recruitment procedures were not carried out anew each time a contract was concluded, and even when they were carried out, there were procedural defects. Accordingly, under Article 4(2) of the Act on the Protection, Etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees (the “Fixed-Term Act”), it was held that the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is an application for relief from unfair dismissal heard by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the central issue was whether a fixed-term employee, whose employment contracts had been repeatedly renewed multiple times, had in substance been converted into an indefinite-term employee.
The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the employee’s continuous length of service, the nature of the duties performed, the gaps between contracts, and the actual recruitment practices, and on that basis determined (i) whether the employee had been converted to an “employee with no fixed term of employment” under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act, and (ii) whether, in that status, a notice of contract expiry constituted a de facto dismissal amounting to unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“Whether an employee who has performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for at least two years under a series of repeatedly renewed fixed-term employment contracts has been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act, and whether, in that status, a notice of contract expiry constitutes a de facto dismissal that is subject to relief as unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel found that the employee had continuously performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for more than two years through multiple contract renewals; that the gaps between contracts were so short that they should be regarded as continuous service in substance; and that independent recruitment procedures were not conducted for each contract, and even when procedures were conducted, they were procedurally defective. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that, under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act, the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be, in substance, a dismissal in which the employer terminated the employment relationship of an employee who had already been converted to an indefinite-term employee, under the pretext of “contract expiry.”
The Labor Relations Commission held the dismissal to be unfair on the grounds that the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; that the Fixed-Term Act, in order to prevent abuse of fixed-term employment and to stabilize the status of employees who have worked continuously for at least two years, mandates conversion to indefinite-term employment as a compulsory provision; and that the legal effect of such conversion cannot be avoided merely by invoking the formal expression of “contract expiry.”
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if your employment contract is labeled as “fixed-term,” you should carefully examine whether you have been converted to an indefinite-term employee under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act if you have continuously performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for more than two years and the gaps between contracts are short.
If you have already been converted to an indefinite-term employee, the employer’s notice of “contract expiry” also constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. You should therefore check not only whether there is a just cause for dismissal, but also whether you have properly received written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal in accordance with the law.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, you should systematically manage the continuous length of service, the ordinary and continuous nature of the duties, and the gaps between contracts for repeatedly renewed fixed-term employees. At the two-year mark, you should examine whether any of the exceptions under the proviso to Article 4(1) of the Fixed-Term Act apply; if not, you must reorganize your personnel management policies on the premise that these employees will be converted to indefinite-term employees.
In addition, for employees who have been converted to employees with no fixed term of employment, you should not rely on the formal expression of “contract expiry.” Instead, you must faithfully comply with the requirement of just cause for dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and the obligation to provide written notice under Article 27, in order to prevent unfair dismissal disputes and applications for relief before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee in this case had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment
The employee performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for more than two consecutive years while repeatedly entering into employment contracts multiple times; the gaps between employment contracts were extremely short; and recruitment procedures were not carried out anew each time a contract was concluded, and even when procedures were carried out, there were procedural defects. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that, under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act, the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment.
B. Whether the dismissal in this case was justified
Given that it is reasonable to view that the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment, the “contract expiry” constitutes, in substance, a dismissal. As the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal, etc. under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act at the time of the dismissal in this case, the dismissal is unfair. Therefore, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues that were premised on the employee being a fixed-term employee.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employee in this case had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment
The employee performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for more than two consecutive years while repeatedly entering into employment contracts multiple times; the gaps between employment contracts were extremely short; and recruitment procedures were not carried out anew each time a contract was concluded, and even when procedures were carried out, there were procedural defects. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that, under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act, the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment.
B. Whether the dismissal in this case was justified
Given that it is reasonable to view that the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment, the “contract expiry” constitutes, in substance, a dismissal. As the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal, etc. under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act at the time of the dismissal in this case, the dismissal is unfair. Therefore, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues that were premised on the employee being a fixed-term employee. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, conversion to indefinite-term contract (repeatedly renewed fixed-term employment), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Abuse of Persons with Disabilities · Failure to Implement Counseling Records)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to conversion to an indefinite-term contract (repeatedly renewed fixed-term employment) can be found under “List of Decisions on Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (Repeatedly Renewed Fixed-Term Employment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal relief case that concluded with a full win for the employee on the issue of “conversion to an indefinite-term contract (repeatedly renewed fixed-term employment).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026BuHae57 ○ ○ ○ Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal
Date of decision: 2026.03.26 · Result: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the employee in this case had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment. The employee performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for more than two consecutive years while repeatedly entering into employment contracts multiple times; the gaps between contracts were extremely short; and recruitment procedures were not carried out anew each time a contract was concluded, and even when they were carried out, there were procedural defects. Accordingly, under Article 4(2) of the Act on the Protection, Etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees (the “Fixed-Term Act”), it was held that the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case is an application for relief from unfair dismissal heard by the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, in which the central issue was whether a fixed-term employee, whose employment contracts had been repeatedly renewed multiple times, had in substance been converted into an indefinite-term employee.
The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the employee’s continuous length of service, the nature of the duties performed, the gaps between contracts, and the actual recruitment practices, and on that basis determined (i) whether the employee had been converted to an “employee with no fixed term of employment” under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act, and (ii) whether, in that status, a notice of contract expiry constituted a de facto dismissal amounting to unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are:
“Whether an employee who has performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for at least two years under a series of repeatedly renewed fixed-term employment contracts has been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act, and whether, in that status, a notice of contract expiry constitutes a de facto dismissal that is subject to relief as unfair dismissal.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The adjudicating panel found that the employee had continuously performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for more than two years through multiple contract renewals; that the gaps between contracts were so short that they should be regarded as continuous service in substance; and that independent recruitment procedures were not conducted for each contract, and even when procedures were conducted, they were procedurally defective. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that, under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act, the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment.
The dismissal in this case was therefore found to be, in substance, a dismissal in which the employer terminated the employment relationship of an employee who had already been converted to an indefinite-term employee, under the pretext of “contract expiry.”
The Labor Relations Commission held the dismissal to be unfair on the grounds that the employer failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; that the Fixed-Term Act, in order to prevent abuse of fixed-term employment and to stabilize the status of employees who have worked continuously for at least two years, mandates conversion to indefinite-term employment as a compulsory provision; and that the legal effect of such conversion cannot be avoided merely by invoking the formal expression of “contract expiry.”
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if your employment contract is labeled as “fixed-term,” you should carefully examine whether you have been converted to an indefinite-term employee under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act if you have continuously performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for more than two years and the gaps between contracts are short.
If you have already been converted to an indefinite-term employee, the employer’s notice of “contract expiry” also constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. You should therefore check not only whether there is a just cause for dismissal, but also whether you have properly received written notice specifying the reasons and timing of the dismissal in accordance with the law.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, you should systematically manage the continuous length of service, the ordinary and continuous nature of the duties, and the gaps between contracts for repeatedly renewed fixed-term employees. At the two-year mark, you should examine whether any of the exceptions under the proviso to Article 4(1) of the Fixed-Term Act apply; if not, you must reorganize your personnel management policies on the premise that these employees will be converted to indefinite-term employees.
In addition, for employees who have been converted to employees with no fixed term of employment, you should not rely on the formal expression of “contract expiry.” Instead, you must faithfully comply with the requirement of just cause for dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and the obligation to provide written notice under Article 27, in order to prevent unfair dismissal disputes and applications for relief before the Labor Relations Commission.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the employee in this case had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment
The employee performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for more than two consecutive years while repeatedly entering into employment contracts multiple times; the gaps between employment contracts were extremely short; and recruitment procedures were not carried out anew each time a contract was concluded, and even when procedures were carried out, there were procedural defects. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that, under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act, the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment.
B. Whether the dismissal in this case was justified
Given that it is reasonable to view that the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment, the “contract expiry” constitutes, in substance, a dismissal. As the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal, etc. under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act at the time of the dismissal in this case, the dismissal is unfair. Therefore, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues that were premised on the employee being a fixed-term employee.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the employee in this case had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment
The employee performed the same or similar ordinary and continuous duties for more than two consecutive years while repeatedly entering into employment contracts multiple times; the gaps between employment contracts were extremely short; and recruitment procedures were not carried out anew each time a contract was concluded, and even when procedures were carried out, there were procedural defects. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that, under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Act, the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment.
B. Whether the dismissal in this case was justified
Given that it is reasonable to view that the employee had been converted to an employee with no fixed term of employment, the “contract expiry” constitutes, in substance, a dismissal. As the employer violated the obligation to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal, etc. under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act at the time of the dismissal in this case, the dismissal is unfair. Therefore, there is no need to further examine the remaining issues that were premised on the employee being a fixed-term employee. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissal of application
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: Initial decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, conversion to indefinite-term contract (repeatedly renewed fixed-term employment), 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&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Disciplinary Severity (Abuse of Persons with Disabilities · Failure to Implement Counseling Records)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to conversion to an indefinite-term contract (repeatedly renewed fixed-term employment) can be found under “List of Decisions on Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contract (Repeatedly Renewed Fixed-Term Employment).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
