Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Conversion to Open Recruitment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 496)
- Date2026/06/04 04:12
- Read 45
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, fixed-term employees who had entered into fixed-term employment contracts expected to continue working after the expiry of their contract periods. However, the employer conducted an open recruitment process to newly select employees and did not renew the existing contracts. The employees filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employees had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts, and ultimately dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a fixed-term employment relationship, a legitimate expectation of renewal can be recognized for the employee even in the absence of separate renewal provisions or established practice, and further, whether the failure to re-select the employees through an open recruitment process constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the employees had entered into explicit fixed-term employment contracts with the employer; that the employment contracts did not contain any provisions regarding an obligation to renew, conditions for renewal, or renewal procedures; that it was difficult to regard the open recruitment procedure implemented by the employer as a mere formality; that it was difficult to interpret the wording of the recruitment announcement or the outsourcing contract as intended to guarantee employment on the premise of renewal; and that it was difficult to find that a practice of repeated renewal or automatic re-contracting for similar employees had been established.
In light of the above, the panel determined that it was difficult to view the fixed term of the employment contracts as merely formal, and that no relationship of trust (legitimate expectation of renewal) had been formed under which the contracts would naturally be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions.
Accordingly, the panel held that the employer’s action in this case constituted nothing more than the termination of the employment relationship due to the expiry of the contract period, and did not amount to unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If you are working as a fixed-term employee, you should be aware that, where the employment contract, work rules, or recruitment announcement do not specifically set out “criteria, procedures, or obligations” for renewal, a mere desire or hope to continue working will generally not suffice to establish a legitimate expectation of renewal. It is very important, in anticipation of potential disputes, to secure objective evidence in advance, such as examples of repeated renewals, re-contracting practices for employees in similar positions, and whether open recruitment has in substance been operated as a de facto renewal procedure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when hiring fixed-term employees, it is advisable to clearly set out in writing the contract period, the possibility (or not) of renewal, and any plan to convert to open recruitment, and to ensure that the wording of the employment contract and the recruitment announcement does not conflict. To prevent the situation from escalating into a collective redundancy or unfair dismissal dispute, it is important to clarify internal standards as to whether selection through open recruitment constitutes “new hiring” or a “renewal screening,” and to manage renewal and non-renewal cases for employees in the same job category in a consistent manner.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the employees entered into fixed-term employment contracts with the employer; that the employment contracts did not specify any obligation, conditions, or procedures for renewal of the employment contracts; that it is difficult to regard the open recruitment procedure implemented by the employer as merely a formalistic act; that it is difficult to interpret the wording set out in the recruitment announcement or the outsourcing contract as intended to guarantee a legitimate expectation of renewal; and that it is difficult to find that a practice of renewal of employment contracts had been established, it cannot be said that the employees had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the employees entered into fixed-term employment contracts with the employer; that the employment contracts did not specify any obligation, conditions, or procedures for renewal of the employment contracts; that it is difficult to regard the open recruitment procedure implemented by the employer as merely a formalistic act; that it is difficult to interpret the wording set out in the recruitment announcement or the outsourcing contract as intended to guarantee a legitimate expectation of renewal; and that it is difficult to find that a practice of renewal of employment contracts had been established, it cannot be said that the employees had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (1-Year Outsourcing Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Existence of Contract Period (Recorded Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (conversion to open recruitment), 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, “‘Existence of Contract Period (Recorded Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (conversion to open recruitment) can be found in the “Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Conversion to Open Recruitment) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, fixed-term employees who had entered into fixed-term employment contracts expected to continue working after the expiry of their contract periods. However, the employer conducted an open recruitment process to newly select employees and did not renew the existing contracts. The employees filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employees had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts, and ultimately dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a fixed-term employment relationship, a legitimate expectation of renewal can be recognized for the employee even in the absence of separate renewal provisions or established practice, and further, whether the failure to re-select the employees through an open recruitment process constitutes unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case noted that the employees had entered into explicit fixed-term employment contracts with the employer; that the employment contracts did not contain any provisions regarding an obligation to renew, conditions for renewal, or renewal procedures; that it was difficult to regard the open recruitment procedure implemented by the employer as a mere formality; that it was difficult to interpret the wording of the recruitment announcement or the outsourcing contract as intended to guarantee employment on the premise of renewal; and that it was difficult to find that a practice of repeated renewal or automatic re-contracting for similar employees had been established.
In light of the above, the panel determined that it was difficult to view the fixed term of the employment contracts as merely formal, and that no relationship of trust (legitimate expectation of renewal) had been formed under which the contracts would naturally be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions.
Accordingly, the panel held that the employer’s action in this case constituted nothing more than the termination of the employment relationship due to the expiry of the contract period, and did not amount to unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
If you are working as a fixed-term employee, you should be aware that, where the employment contract, work rules, or recruitment announcement do not specifically set out “criteria, procedures, or obligations” for renewal, a mere desire or hope to continue working will generally not suffice to establish a legitimate expectation of renewal. It is very important, in anticipation of potential disputes, to secure objective evidence in advance, such as examples of repeated renewals, re-contracting practices for employees in similar positions, and whether open recruitment has in substance been operated as a de facto renewal procedure.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when hiring fixed-term employees, it is advisable to clearly set out in writing the contract period, the possibility (or not) of renewal, and any plan to convert to open recruitment, and to ensure that the wording of the employment contract and the recruitment announcement does not conflict. To prevent the situation from escalating into a collective redundancy or unfair dismissal dispute, it is important to clarify internal standards as to whether selection through open recruitment constitutes “new hiring” or a “renewal screening,” and to manage renewal and non-renewal cases for employees in the same job category in a consistent manner.
(ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseop Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&.)
2. Matters Determined
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the employees entered into fixed-term employment contracts with the employer; that the employment contracts did not specify any obligation, conditions, or procedures for renewal of the employment contracts; that it is difficult to regard the open recruitment procedure implemented by the employer as merely a formalistic act; that it is difficult to interpret the wording set out in the recruitment announcement or the outsourcing contract as intended to guarantee a legitimate expectation of renewal; and that it is difficult to find that a practice of renewal of employment contracts had been established, it cannot be said that the employees had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Key Points of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Taking into comprehensive consideration that the employees entered into fixed-term employment contracts with the employer; that the employment contracts did not specify any obligation, conditions, or procedures for renewal of the employment contracts; that it is difficult to regard the open recruitment procedure implemented by the employer as merely a formalistic act; that it is difficult to interpret the wording set out in the recruitment announcement or the outsourcing contract as intended to guarantee a legitimate expectation of renewal; and that it is difficult to find that a practice of renewal of employment contracts had been established, it cannot be said that the employees had a legitimate expectation of renewal of their employment contracts. /
[Further Related Decisions]
- ‘Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (1-Year Outsourcing Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Existence of Contract Period (Recorded Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
- ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (conversion to open recruitment), 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, “‘Existence of Contract Period (Recorded Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (conversion to open recruitment) can be found in the “Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Conversion to Open Recruitment) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
