Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning “Existence of Dismissal (One-Day Daily Employment Contract)” (Unfair Dismissal 42)
- Date2026/01/04 04:12
- Read 211
[Case Information]
- Case name: Decision on unfair dismissal concerning “existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment contract)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae3972 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.25
- Summary of outcome: ① The employee in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, the employee entered into a one-day “Standard Employment Contract for Daily Workers” with the employer and actually worked for only one day, on 7 September 2025. Thereafter, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming to have been unfairly dismissed. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether a dismissal existed at all, taking into account the contents of the written employment contract and the method of wage payment. Labor Law Firm Law& consistently emphasizes that, in this type of unfair dismissal dispute, the preliminary issue is whether the employment relationship continued to exist.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is whether “a daily worker whose employment period is expressly specified as ‘one day’ can claim unfair dismissal after completing that one day of work, even though the employer did not separately express any intention to dismiss—in other words, whether a dismissal exists at all.”
The panel in this case considered the following: the fact that the employee and employer executed a Standard Employment Contract for Daily Workers; the fact that the contract expressly specified the employment period as “one day, from 7 September 2025 to 7 September 2025”; and the fact that the employer paid the employee a daily wage of KRW 170,000 on the same day.
On this basis, the panel found that the employee fell under the category of a daily worker employed on an intermittent basis, and that the employment contract had merely expired by the lapse of its term. It was therefore difficult to find that there had been any separate expression of intent by the employer to dismiss the employee.
Accordingly, the “dismissal” in this case was ultimately held not to exist, and on that ground the measure did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission found that: first, the form of the employment contract was a “Standard Employment Contract for Daily Workers”; second, the employment period was explicitly limited to one day; and third, the wages were calculated on a daily basis and settled and paid on the same day. In light of these factors, it concluded that the employment relationship terminated upon the completion of that one day.
Taking all of these circumstances into account, the Commission held that, absent confirmation of any separate expression of intent by the employer that could be regarded as a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, it was difficult to recognize the very existence of a “dismissal,” which is a prerequisite for an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is essential to check how the contract period stated in the employment contract you signed is connected to the actual form of employment. Where one-day or short-term daily employment contracts have been repeatedly executed and performed, a key issue may be whether the case involves mere expiry of the contract term or, in substance, a dismissal premised on continuous employment. In such situations, it is important to prepare objective materials in advance, such as records of days worked, continuity of service, and the details of the employer’s direction and supervision.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when engaging daily workers, you must clearly specify in the employment contract the contract period and the method of calculating and paying wages, and ensure that actual practice is managed in line with those terms. In particular, if daily workers are repeatedly used over a long period and in effect assigned to regular and continuous duties, there is a high risk that future disputes may arise over unfair dismissal or employee status unless you proactively review HR and labor strategies in advance, such as conversion to fixed-term or open-ended contracts, or workforce restructuring.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
Taking into account: ① that the employee executed a Standard Employment Contract for Daily Workers with the employer on 7 September 2025 and worked for one day on 7 September 2025; ② that the employment contract stated, “Employment period: one day, from 7 September 2025 to 7 September 2025”; and ③ that the employer paid the employee a daily wage of KRW 170,000 on the same day, the Commission determined that the employee was a daily worker and that no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account: ① that the employee executed a Standard Employment Contract for Daily Workers with the employer on 7 September 2025 and worked for one day on 7 September 2025; ② that the employment contract stated, “Employment period: one day, from 7 September 2025 to 7 September 2025”; and ③ that the employer paid the employee a daily wage of KRW 170,000 on the same day, the Commission determined that the employee was a daily worker and that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances)’ Decision on Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Loss from Credit Sales of Merchandise)’ Decision on Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully upheld
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Comply with Correction Order)’ Decision on Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Decision-making body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9045 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Denial of Employee Status (Academy Instructor Commission Contract)’ Decision on Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment contract) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (One-Day Daily Employment Contract).”
- Case name: Decision on unfair dismissal concerning “existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment contract)”
- Date of decision:
- Case number: Dismissed
- Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae3972 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2025.11.25
- Summary of outcome: ① The employee in 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Overview of the Case
In this case, the employee entered into a one-day “Standard Employment Contract for Daily Workers” with the employer and actually worked for only one day, on 7 September 2025. Thereafter, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming to have been unfairly dismissed. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission first examined whether a dismissal existed at all, taking into account the contents of the written employment contract and the method of wage payment. Labor Law Firm Law& consistently emphasizes that, in this type of unfair dismissal dispute, the preliminary issue is whether the employment relationship continued to exist.
Ⅱ. Key Issue
The key issue in this case is whether “a daily worker whose employment period is expressly specified as ‘one day’ can claim unfair dismissal after completing that one day of work, even though the employer did not separately express any intention to dismiss—in other words, whether a dismissal exists at all.”
The panel in this case considered the following: the fact that the employee and employer executed a Standard Employment Contract for Daily Workers; the fact that the contract expressly specified the employment period as “one day, from 7 September 2025 to 7 September 2025”; and the fact that the employer paid the employee a daily wage of KRW 170,000 on the same day.
On this basis, the panel found that the employee fell under the category of a daily worker employed on an intermittent basis, and that the employment contract had merely expired by the lapse of its term. It was therefore difficult to find that there had been any separate expression of intent by the employer to dismiss the employee.
Accordingly, the “dismissal” in this case was ultimately held not to exist, and on that ground the measure did not constitute unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The Labor Relations Commission found that: first, the form of the employment contract was a “Standard Employment Contract for Daily Workers”; second, the employment period was explicitly limited to one day; and third, the wages were calculated on a daily basis and settled and paid on the same day. In light of these factors, it concluded that the employment relationship terminated upon the completion of that one day.
Taking all of these circumstances into account, the Commission held that, absent confirmation of any separate expression of intent by the employer that could be regarded as a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, it was difficult to recognize the very existence of a “dismissal,” which is a prerequisite for an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s standpoint, it is essential to check how the contract period stated in the employment contract you signed is connected to the actual form of employment. Where one-day or short-term daily employment contracts have been repeatedly executed and performed, a key issue may be whether the case involves mere expiry of the contract term or, in substance, a dismissal premised on continuous employment. In such situations, it is important to prepare objective materials in advance, such as records of days worked, continuity of service, and the details of the employer’s direction and supervision.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when engaging daily workers, you must clearly specify in the employment contract the contract period and the method of calculating and paying wages, and ensure that actual practice is managed in line with those terms. In particular, if daily workers are repeatedly used over a long period and in effect assigned to regular and continuous duties, there is a high risk that future disputes may arise over unfair dismissal or employee status unless you proactively review HR and labor strategies in advance, such as conversion to fixed-term or open-ended contracts, or workforce restructuring.
2. Matters Decided
A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History
Taking into account: ① that the employee executed a Standard Employment Contract for Daily Workers with the employer on 7 September 2025 and worked for one day on 7 September 2025; ② that the employment contract stated, “Employment period: one day, from 7 September 2025 to 7 September 2025”; and ③ that the employer paid the employee a daily wage of KRW 170,000 on the same day, the Commission determined that the employee was a daily worker and that no dismissal existed.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
Taking into account: ① that the employee executed a Standard Employment Contract for Daily Workers with the employer on 7 September 2025 and worked for one day on 7 September 2025; ② that the employment contract stated, “Employment period: one day, from 7 September 2025 to 7 September 2025”; and ③ that the employer paid the employee a daily wage of KRW 170,000 on the same day, the Commission determined that the employee was a daily worker and that no dismissal existed. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Proof of Existence of Dismissal (Written Notice · Four Major Social Insurances)’ Decision on Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
- “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Loss from Credit Sales of Merchandise)’ Decision on Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Case number: Fully upheld
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Failure to Comply with Correction Order)’ Decision on Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 1)” – Date of decision: – Decision-making body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2025BuHae9045 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Denial of Employee Status (Academy Instructor Commission Contract)’ Decision on Unfair Dismissal (Unfair Dismissal 1),” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to existence of dismissal (one-day daily employment contract) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Dismissal (One-Day Daily Employment Contract).”
