[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of whether there had been an expression of intent to dismiss (timing of the non-renewal notice). Decision date: 2026-07-03 · Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해1483 Key issue summary: The employer informed the employee in 2026 that renewal would be difficult. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an employee whose fixed-term employment contract was set to expire on 18 April 2026 and who filed for relief from unfair dismissal on the ground that the employer’s statement on 2 March 2026 that renewal would be difficult constituted a dismissal. In the proceedings before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, the employer, represented by Labor Law Firm Law&, prevailed. The key issues were whether unfair dismissal had been established and how to distinguish between the various modes of termination of the employment relationship. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether, “where, prior to the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract, the employer notifies the employee that renewal will be difficult, such notification can be regarded as an expression of intent to dismiss aimed at immediately terminating the employment relationship.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employer merely notified the employee on 2 March 2026 that renewal would be difficult. Although the employee, in the unfair dismissal relief application, challenged a “dismissal as of 2 March 2026,” there were no specific statements or measures by the employer that could be viewed as a notice of immediate termination. On the contrary, after 2 March the employer sent a content-certified letter requesting the employee to report to work and otherwise acted on the premise that the employment relationship continued. Accordingly, the panel held that it was difficult to find that there had been any unilateral expression of intent to dismiss by the employer in the first place, and therefore ruled that unfair dismissal was not established. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it is important to understand that an employer’s statements such as “renewal will be difficult” or “it will be hard to continue after the contract expires” do not, by themselves, amount to an immediate dismissal. If, in reality, instructions to report to work continue to be given, wages continue to be paid, and the employment relationship is being maintained, it may be more appropriate to approach the matter not as a dismissal but as a separate issue concerning the justification of the refusal to renew the contract and the existence of a legitimate expectation of renewal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when conveying, prior to the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract, that renewal will be difficult, it is advisable to clearly explain that “the existing contract will remain in force until a specified date, and there will be no renewal thereafter.” In addition, until the contract expires, the employer should consistently demonstrate the continuation of the employment relationship through instructions to report to work, assignment of duties, payment of wages, and the like, in order to reduce the risk of disputes over unfair dismissal. To prevail in this type of case, it is essential to accurately understand the legal distinctions between dismissal, expiry of the contract term, and refusal to renew, and to systematically organize the facts supporting the position that the employer’s intent was not “immediate termination” but “refusal to renew after expiry of the contract.” 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that there had been no dismissal, on the ground that it was difficult to find that the employer had made a unilateral expression of intent to terminate the employment relationship. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning It was acknowledged that the employer notified the employee on 2 March 2026 that renewal would be difficult. However, this related to the renewal of the contract expiring on 18 April 2026, and in light of (i) the fact that, when filing the unfair dismissal relief application on 20 March 2026, the employee challenged a dismissal as of 2 March 2026; (ii) the fact that, although the employee claims to have understood this as an immediate termination of the contract, there were no statements by the employer supporting such an understanding; and (iii) the fact that, after 2 March 2026, the employer sent a content-certified letter requesting the employee to report to work, thereby confirming the continuation of the employment relationship, the employer’s intent on 2 March 2026 can only be regarded as indicating that renewal as of 18 April 2026 would not be possible, and cannot be viewed as an expression of intent to dismiss. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Benefit of Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Expectation of Succession of Employment (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expression of intent to dismiss (timing of non-renewal notice), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning ‘Disciplinary Severity (Prolonged Misconduct)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to expression of intent to dismiss (timing of non-renewal notice) can be viewed in the “List of Decisions Related to Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Timing of Non-Renewal Notice).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article