[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “agreement on conversion to regular employment (expiration of fixed-term contract).” Decision body: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae535 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-29 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: … It can be viewed that objections were raised regarding the core terms of the employment contract, such as the structure and method of calculating wages, so it is difficult to find that there was a definitive meeting of the minds between the parties on the conclusion of an employment contract. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker employed under a fixed-term employment contract filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after the expiration of the contract period, arguing that there had been discussions on conversion to regular employment. The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission found that although the employer had sent a draft regular employment contract and discussed the possibility of conversion to regular status, there remained differences of opinion on key working conditions such as the structure and method of calculating wages, and therefore whether a regular employment contract had actually been formed became the central issue. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether the mere fact that there were discussions on conversion to regular employment and that a draft employment contract was sent before the expiration of the fixed-term employment contract is sufficient to find that a regular employment contract, effective from 1 March 2026, had been formed, and, accordingly, whether the expiration of the term can be regarded as an unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case noted that the employer had presented a draft regular employment contract and discussed the possibility of conversion to regular status, that in the course of those discussions there were differences of opinion between the parties regarding core terms of the employment contract such as the structure and method of calculating wages, and that, in light of these circumstances as a whole, it was difficult to find that there had been a definitive offer, acceptance, and meeting of the minds regarding the conclusion of an employment contract. Ultimately, it held that it could not be recognized that a regular employment contract to be applied from 1 March 2026 had been formed, and that the employment relationship between the parties merely ended upon the expiration of the agreed term of the existing fixed-term employment contract. The dismissal in this case must therefore be viewed as an automatic termination due to the expiration of the fixed-term employment contract, and cannot be regarded as a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Commission held that there is no remedial interest in an unfair dismissal claim. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even if a fixed-term employee expects conversion to regular employment or renewal of the contract, unless specific and final agreement with the employer on key matters such as wages and working conditions is set out in writing or in a clear expression of intent, the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will not readily recognize that an employment contract has been formed. In addition, mere statements such as “there is a possibility of conversion to regular employment” or “we will consider it,” or the mere presentation of a draft contract, do not immediately give rise to a legitimate expectation of renewal or conversion to an indefinite-term contract. It is therefore important to preserve the actual contents and procedures of any agreement by means such as emails, written documents, or minutes of meetings. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when explaining the possibility of conversion to regular employment to a fixed-term employee or presenting a draft employment contract, it is important to clearly inform the employee whether the matter is still at the “review/consultation stage” or has reached the “final agreement stage.” Where agreement has not yet been reached on core working conditions such as the wage system, inclusion of performance bonuses and allowances, and working patterns, it should be made clear in emails, official letters, etc. that the matter is “under consultation” and that no contract has yet been formed. Doing so can reduce unnecessary disputes over alleged unfair dismissal. This type of decision clearly shows that, in relation to the termination of fixed-term employment relationships, unlike in cases of redundancy or ordinary dismissal, the “existence of an employment contract” and the “existence of an expectation of renewal or conversion” become preliminary issues. It is therefore advisable to review legal risks from the contract stage with the advice of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History … It can be viewed that objections were raised regarding the core terms of the employment contract, such as the structure and method of calculating wages, so it is difficult to find that there was a definitive meeting of the minds between the parties on the conclusion of an employment contract. Therefore, the mere fact that the employer sent a draft regular employment contract and discussed the possibility of conversion to regular status cannot be regarded as a definitive offer and acceptance regarding a regular employment contract. Ultimately, it is difficult to recognize that a regular employment contract to be applied from 1 March 2026 had been formed between the parties, and since the employment relationship merely ended upon the expiration of the term of the existing fixed-term employment contract, it is difficult to find that there is any remedial interest. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … It can be viewed that objections were raised regarding the core terms of the employment contract, such as the structure and method of calculating wages, so it is difficult to find that there was a definitive meeting of the minds between the parties on the conclusion of an employment contract. Therefore, the mere fact that the employer sent a draft regular employment contract and discussed the possibility of conversion to regular status cannot be regarded as a definitive offer and acceptance regarding a regular employment contract. Ultimately, it is difficult to recognize that a regular employment contract to be applied from 1 March 2026 had been formed between the parties, and since the employment relationship merely ended upon the expiration of the term of the existing fixed-term employment contract, it is difficult to find that there is any remedial interest. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: First-instance decision upheld - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Working Under the Influence of Alcohol · Concurrent Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, agreement on conversion to regular employment (expiration of fixed-term contract), 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, “‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Working Under the Influence of Alcohol · Concurrent Employment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to agreement on conversion to regular employment (expiration of fixed-term contract) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Agreement on Conversion to Regular Employment (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article