Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Expectation of Contract Renewal (Professional Football Coach)” (Unfair Dismissal 463)
- Date2026/05/19 09:56
- Read 97
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of contract renewal (professional football coach).”
Decision-making body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 24 ○○○
Unfair Dismissal Relief Application · 24 March 2026 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the individual is a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act
Whether a person falls within the definition of a worker under the Labor Standards Act must be determined not by the form of the contract, but by whether, in substance, the person provided work under the employer’s control and supervision for the purpose of receiving wages.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an individual who had entered into a “training and coaching service contract” with a professional football club and had been performing coaching duties filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal after the contract term expired and the contract was not renewed.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the coach was a worker under the Labor Standards Act and, further, whether a legitimate expectation of contract renewal could be recognized. It ultimately dismissed the application for relief.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “Where a professional football coach has formally entered into a ‘training and coaching service contract,’ (i) whether he or she qualifies as a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and (ii) where the coaching contract has ended due to a change of head coach, whether a legitimate expectation of contract renewal can be recognized.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel held that the individual qualified as a worker under the Labor Standards Act, noting that he performed the training and coaching duties prescribed by the club—such as player evaluation, tactical research, and training instruction—under the club’s direction and supervision; that his working hours and place of work were in effect constrained by the club’s schedule; and that he could not delegate his work to a third party, received a fixed monthly remuneration based on an annual salary, and worked exclusively for the club over a long period, thereby limiting his independence.
However, the panel found that no legitimate expectation of contract renewal had been formed, considering that the parties had executed a separate training and coaching service contract each year; that the contract contained no express provision on renewal and contemplated a structure in which the coaching staff could be changed upon a change of head coach; that, in professional football, there is a prevailing practice that head coaches and coaches share the same term of office; and that, in this case, the coaching position in fact ended upon the change of head coach.
Accordingly, the panel determined that, contrary to the worker’s assertion, the legal premise that “a refusal to renew upon expiry of the term automatically constitutes unfair dismissal” could not be established in this case, and thus it was difficult to recognize the employer’s action as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even if the contractual form is a “service contract” or “outsourcing contract,” if in reality you work exclusively under the employer’s specific direction and supervision, at fixed times and places, and receive fixed remuneration, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may recognize you as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.
However, where the contract term is fixed, the recognition of an expectation of renewal requires specific circumstances that support a “trust in continued employment,” such as a repeated practice of renewal, express or implied promises of re‑contracting, or a renewal system operated based on performance or evaluation criteria.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
In the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, even where sports teams, cultural and artistic organizations, educational institutions, and similar entities use service contracts in form for coaches, instructors, and trainers, worker status is very often recognized depending on the actual mode of operation. Employers should therefore not rely solely on the title of the contract, but should review the method of direction and supervision, the designation of working hours and place of work, and the remuneration structure, and manage in advance the risk that worker status may be recognized.
In addition, when using fixed-term or contract employees, it is important for dispute prevention to clearly determine, as part of your HR and labor strategy, whether to structure contract renewal clauses and actual practices so as not to create an expectation of renewal, or instead to guarantee renewal under certain conditions, and then to document and operate this consistently.
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission recognized worker status but denied the expectation of contract renewal. This confirms once again the structure of labor law under which the determination of worker status and the determination of an expectation of renewal are separate stages. Those preparing for Labor Relations Commission proceedings will find it highly useful in practice to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and clearly distinguish and organize the issues of “worker status – contract type – expectation of renewal.”
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the individual is a worker under the Labor Standards Act
Whether a person falls within the definition of a worker under the Labor Standards Act must be determined not by the form of the contract, but by whether, in substance, the person provided work under the employer’s control and supervision for the purpose of receiving wages.
The worker performed the training and coaching duties prescribed by the club—such as player evaluation, tactical research, and training instruction—under the club’s direction and supervision, and his working hours and place of work were in effect constrained by the club’s schedule. He could not delegate his work to a third party; his remuneration was paid monthly in a fixed amount based on an annual salary; and he provided work in a state of limited independence, having worked exclusively for the club over a long period.
In light of these circumstances as a whole, it is reasonable to view the worker as a person who provided work for the purpose of receiving wages in a subordinate relationship with the employer, and thus as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.
B. Whether an Expectation of Contract Renewal Is Recognized
The training and coaching service contracts executed by the parties contain no express provision on contract renewal and contemplate the execution of a separate contract each year. The contract structure anticipates that the coaching staff may be changed depending on circumstances such as a change of head coach. In the professional football community, there is a practice that head coaches and coaches share the same term of office. In this case, the coaching position in fact ended upon the change of head coach.
Taking these factors together, it is difficult to find that a legitimate expectation that the contract would be renewed had been formed on the part of the worker.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the individual is a worker under the Labor Standards Act
Whether a person falls within the definition of a worker under the Labor Standards Act must be determined not by the form of the contract, but by whether, in substance, the person provided work under the employer’s control and supervision for the purpose of receiving wages.
The worker performed the training and coaching duties prescribed by the club—such as player evaluation, tactical research, and training instruction—under the club’s direction and supervision, and his working hours and place of work were in effect constrained by the club’s schedule. He could not delegate his work to a third party; his remuneration was paid monthly in a fixed amount based on an annual salary; and he provided work in a state of limited independence, having worked exclusively for the club over a long period.
In light of these circumstances as a whole, it is reasonable to view the worker as a person who provided work for the purpose of receiving wages in a subordinate relationship with the employer, and thus as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.
B. Whether an Expectation of Contract Renewal Is Recognized
The training and coaching service contracts executed by the parties contain no express provision on contract renewal and contemplate the execution of a separate contract each year. The contract structure anticipates that the coaching staff may be changed depending on circumstances such as a change of head coach. In the professional football community, there is a practice that head coaches and coaches share the same term of office. In this case, the coaching position in fact ended upon the change of head coach.
Taking these factors together, it is difficult to find that a legitimate expectation that the contract would be renewed had been formed on the part of the worker. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Denial of Worker Status (Job Training Trainee Linked to Employment)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of contract renewal (professional football coach), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Urgent Managerial Necessity (Capital Impairment of KRW 770 Million)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of contract renewal (professional football coach) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Contract Renewal (Professional Football Coach).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of contract renewal (professional football coach).”
Decision-making body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026 Unfair Dismissal Relief Application No. 24 ○○○
Unfair Dismissal Relief Application · 24 March 2026 · Case outcome: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the individual is a “worker” under the Labor Standards Act
Whether a person falls within the definition of a worker under the Labor Standards Act must be determined not by the form of the contract, but by whether, in substance, the person provided work under the employer’s control and supervision for the purpose of receiving wages.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an individual who had entered into a “training and coaching service contract” with a professional football club and had been performing coaching duties filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief from unfair dismissal after the contract term expired and the contract was not renewed.
The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether the coach was a worker under the Labor Standards Act and, further, whether a legitimate expectation of contract renewal could be recognized. It ultimately dismissed the application for relief.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case are: “Where a professional football coach has formally entered into a ‘training and coaching service contract,’ (i) whether he or she qualifies as a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and (ii) where the coaching contract has ended due to a change of head coach, whether a legitimate expectation of contract renewal can be recognized.”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
The panel held that the individual qualified as a worker under the Labor Standards Act, noting that he performed the training and coaching duties prescribed by the club—such as player evaluation, tactical research, and training instruction—under the club’s direction and supervision; that his working hours and place of work were in effect constrained by the club’s schedule; and that he could not delegate his work to a third party, received a fixed monthly remuneration based on an annual salary, and worked exclusively for the club over a long period, thereby limiting his independence.
However, the panel found that no legitimate expectation of contract renewal had been formed, considering that the parties had executed a separate training and coaching service contract each year; that the contract contained no express provision on renewal and contemplated a structure in which the coaching staff could be changed upon a change of head coach; that, in professional football, there is a prevailing practice that head coaches and coaches share the same term of office; and that, in this case, the coaching position in fact ended upon the change of head coach.
Accordingly, the panel determined that, contrary to the worker’s assertion, the legal premise that “a refusal to renew upon expiry of the term automatically constitutes unfair dismissal” could not be established in this case, and thus it was difficult to recognize the employer’s action as an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective)
Even if the contractual form is a “service contract” or “outsourcing contract,” if in reality you work exclusively under the employer’s specific direction and supervision, at fixed times and places, and receive fixed remuneration, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts may recognize you as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.
However, where the contract term is fixed, the recognition of an expectation of renewal requires specific circumstances that support a “trust in continued employment,” such as a repeated practice of renewal, express or implied promises of re‑contracting, or a renewal system operated based on performance or evaluation criteria.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
In the practical experience of Labor Law Firm Law&, even where sports teams, cultural and artistic organizations, educational institutions, and similar entities use service contracts in form for coaches, instructors, and trainers, worker status is very often recognized depending on the actual mode of operation. Employers should therefore not rely solely on the title of the contract, but should review the method of direction and supervision, the designation of working hours and place of work, and the remuneration structure, and manage in advance the risk that worker status may be recognized.
In addition, when using fixed-term or contract employees, it is important for dispute prevention to clearly determine, as part of your HR and labor strategy, whether to structure contract renewal clauses and actual practices so as not to create an expectation of renewal, or instead to guarantee renewal under certain conditions, and then to document and operate this consistently.
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission recognized worker status but denied the expectation of contract renewal. This confirms once again the structure of labor law under which the determination of worker status and the determination of an expectation of renewal are separate stages. Those preparing for Labor Relations Commission proceedings will find it highly useful in practice to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and clearly distinguish and organize the issues of “worker status – contract type – expectation of renewal.”
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the individual is a worker under the Labor Standards Act
Whether a person falls within the definition of a worker under the Labor Standards Act must be determined not by the form of the contract, but by whether, in substance, the person provided work under the employer’s control and supervision for the purpose of receiving wages.
The worker performed the training and coaching duties prescribed by the club—such as player evaluation, tactical research, and training instruction—under the club’s direction and supervision, and his working hours and place of work were in effect constrained by the club’s schedule. He could not delegate his work to a third party; his remuneration was paid monthly in a fixed amount based on an annual salary; and he provided work in a state of limited independence, having worked exclusively for the club over a long period.
In light of these circumstances as a whole, it is reasonable to view the worker as a person who provided work for the purpose of receiving wages in a subordinate relationship with the employer, and thus as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.
B. Whether an Expectation of Contract Renewal Is Recognized
The training and coaching service contracts executed by the parties contain no express provision on contract renewal and contemplate the execution of a separate contract each year. The contract structure anticipates that the coaching staff may be changed depending on circumstances such as a change of head coach. In the professional football community, there is a practice that head coaches and coaches share the same term of office. In this case, the coaching position in fact ended upon the change of head coach.
Taking these factors together, it is difficult to find that a legitimate expectation that the contract would be renewed had been formed on the part of the worker.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings
A. Whether the individual is a worker under the Labor Standards Act
Whether a person falls within the definition of a worker under the Labor Standards Act must be determined not by the form of the contract, but by whether, in substance, the person provided work under the employer’s control and supervision for the purpose of receiving wages.
The worker performed the training and coaching duties prescribed by the club—such as player evaluation, tactical research, and training instruction—under the club’s direction and supervision, and his working hours and place of work were in effect constrained by the club’s schedule. He could not delegate his work to a third party; his remuneration was paid monthly in a fixed amount based on an annual salary; and he provided work in a state of limited independence, having worked exclusively for the club over a long period.
In light of these circumstances as a whole, it is reasonable to view the worker as a person who provided work for the purpose of receiving wages in a subordinate relationship with the employer, and thus as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.
B. Whether an Expectation of Contract Renewal Is Recognized
The training and coaching service contracts executed by the parties contain no express provision on contract renewal and contemplate the execution of a separate contract each year. The contract structure anticipates that the coaching staff may be changed depending on circumstances such as a change of head coach. In the professional football community, there is a practice that head coaches and coaches share the same term of office. In this case, the coaching position in fact ended upon the change of head coach.
Taking these factors together, it is difficult to find that a legitimate expectation that the contract would be renewed had been formed on the part of the worker. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Denial of Worker Status (Job Training Trainee Linked to Employment)”
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of decision: – Case number: First‑instance decision upheld
- “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of contract renewal (professional football coach), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Urgent Managerial Necessity (Capital Impairment of KRW 770 Million)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of contract renewal (professional football coach) can be viewed together on the “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Contract Renewal (Professional Football Coach).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
