[Case Information] This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expression of intent to dismiss (timing of re‑contracting notice).” Decision Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae1483 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-03 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of Key Issue: The employer, on 2 March 2026, … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a fixed-term employee who filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that the employer’s notice of difficulty in renewing the contract constituted an unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employer notified the employee on 2 March 2026 that renewal of the contract would be difficult. The employment contract was set to expire on 18 April 2026. Even after that notice, the employer took measures premised on the continuation of the employment relationship, such as sending a content-certified letter requesting the employee to report to work. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission on 20 March 2026, asserting that the employer’s act on 2 March constituted a dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a fixed-term employment contract still remains in force, the employer’s notification that “renewal of the contract will be difficult” can be regarded as an expression of intent to dismiss, meaning immediate termination of the employment contract. Further, if such a notice is no more than an expression of intent to refuse renewal at the time of the future contract expiration, the question arises whether that notice itself can be challenged as an unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel held that the employer’s notice on 2 March 2026 merely indicated that the employer would not renew the contract after its expiration on 18 April 2026, and did not amount to an expression of intent to terminate the employment contract immediately. In reaching this conclusion, the panel considered: the fact that the employee, in the application for remedy, was contesting a dismissal as of 2 March; the employee’s assertion that the notice was understood as an immediate termination, but the absence of any employer statements or conduct supporting such an understanding; and the fact that, even after 2 March, the employer acted on the premise that the employment relationship continued, including by sending a content-certified letter requesting the employee to report to work. In addition, in light of general legal principles, the panel took into account that, as a rule, notifying an employee before the expiration of a fixed-term contract that “the contract will not be renewed” is ordinarily understood as a refusal to renew after the expiration of the term, and is not evaluated as a separate act of dismissal. The panel therefore held that the employer’s action in this case could not be viewed as a dismissal during the contract term, but rather as an expression of intent to refuse renewal in the future, and thus did not constitute an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to note that an employer’s notice such as “renewal will be difficult” or “it will be hard to continue after the contract expires” does not immediately mean that the current employment contract is terminated. You should carefully check, with objective evidence, whether there were any specific measures that can be regarded as dismissal, such as a ban on reporting to work, restrictions on access to the workplace, or suspension of wages, or whether the employer intended to accept your work performance up to the contract expiration date. In the case of fixed-term employees, the issue of a “legitimate expectation of renewal” (갱신기대권) may arise, depending on whether the contract has been repeatedly renewed and whether there are rules or practices regarding renewal. To prepare for potential future disputes over redundancy dismissals or refusal to renew, you should regularly review your employment contract, internal company rules, and HR practices. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when notifying a fixed-term employee of the decision on renewal, it is advisable to clearly state that “the current contract will remain in effect until the expiration date, but renewal thereafter will be difficult,” so as to avoid any misunderstanding that the notice constitutes a dismissal. Until the contract expires, the employer should consistently take measures premised on the continuation of the employment relationship, such as requiring attendance at work and paying wages, and should keep written evidence, such as content-certified letters requesting the employee to report to work. Such documents will serve as important defensive materials if an unfair dismissal dispute arises before the Labor Relations Commission. Furthermore, when preparing for redundancy dismissals or refusals to renew, employers should review in advance the legal principles on legitimate expectations of renewal under the Act on the Protection, Etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees and the restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act. Employers should avoid uniformly blocking contract renewals based solely on internal HR needs. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History It is acknowledged that the employer notified the employee on 2 March 2026 that renewal of the contract would be difficult. However, this notice concerned renewal as of 18 April 2026, the date on which the employment contract was to expire. In light of (i) the fact that the employee, when filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on 20 March 2026, challenged a dismissal as of 2 March 2026; (ii) the fact that, although the employee claims to have understood the notice as an immediate termination of the contract, there were no employer statements supporting such an understanding; and (iii) the fact that, after 2 March 2026, the employer confirmed the continuation of the employment relationship by sending a content-certified letter requesting the employee to report to work, the employer’s intent on 2 March 2026 was to … with respect to 18 April 2026 … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning It is acknowledged that the employer notified the employee on 2 March 2026 that renewal of the contract would be difficult. However, this notice concerned renewal as of 18 April 2026, the date on which the employment contract was to expire. In light of (i) the fact that the employee, when filing the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on 20 March 2026, challenged a dismissal as of 2 March 2026; (ii) the fact that, although the employee claims to have understood the notice as an immediate termination of the contract, there were no employer statements supporting such an understanding; and (iii) the fact that, after 2 March 2026, the employer confirmed the continuation of the employment relationship by sending a content-certified letter requesting the employee to report to work, the employer’s intent on 2 March 2026 was to … with respect to 18 April 2026 … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark During Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Prolonged Misconduct)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Abuse of Disciplinary Cancellation (Unilateral Cancellation of Prior Discipline)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to dismiss (timing of re‑contracting notice), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, labor law firm in Samseong-dong, labor law firm near Samseong Station, labor law firm in Gangnam ※ This article is part of Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Prolonged Misconduct)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to expression of intent to dismiss (timing of re‑contracting notice) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Timing of Re‑contracting Notice).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article