[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of re-employment (audit findings regarding the building manager).” Decision date: 2026-06-26 · Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae1373 Key issue summary: (a). 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an employee who had served as an apartment building manager for 11 years under annually renewed fixed-term employment contracts. After reaching the mandatory retirement age, he was re-employed as a contracted (choktack) employee. When the employer later refused to renew his contract again, he claimed unfair dismissal and filed a relief application with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission held that the employee did have a certain expectation of re-employment/renewal, but that the employer’s refusal to re-employ him was based on reasonable grounds, and therefore dismissed the relief application. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are: (i) whether a building manager who, after mandatory retirement, was re-employed as a contracted employee and had his contract repeatedly renewed over a long period can be recognized as having an “expectation of re-employment/renewal” equivalent to protection against unfair dismissal; and (ii) whether, in circumstances where an audit report pointed to work-related deficiencies, the employer’s refusal to re-employ him was supported by “reasonable grounds.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that the employee had his employment contract renewed annually for 11 years; that the work rules contained a provision allowing continued service as a contracted employee even after the mandatory retirement age; and that, in practice, his contract had in fact been renewed after retirement. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that an “expectation of re-employment (expectation of renewal)” existed to the effect that the contract would continue to be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Notwithstanding the recognition of an expectation of re-employment on the part of the employee, the panel noted that the audit report repeatedly pointed out the building manager’s inadequate performance and neglect of duties; that the arrears in management fees and the embezzlement by the accounting staff appeared to have resulted from the manager’s failure to supervise; and that the employer had notified him of these issues in advance and, after following procedures such as a vote by the representatives of the residents, decided not to renew his contract. Accordingly, the panel held that, since there were socially acceptable and sufficient “reasonable grounds” for the refusal to renew the contract, it was difficult to view the dismissal as unfair, and that the refusal to re-employ him was justified. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Fixed-term and contracted (choktack) employees should be aware that, as in this case, an expectation of renewal may be recognized where there has been long-term repeated renewal, where the work rules or collective agreements contain provisions on re-employment, or where there is an established practice of re-employment after mandatory retirement. However, even if an expectation of renewal is recognized, the employer’s refusal to renew may still be found justified where there are serious deficiencies in job performance or grounds for loss of trust proven by audit reports, evaluation reports, and similar documents. It is therefore important to keep objective records of work performance, responses to complaints, and the fulfillment of supervisory duties. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) When operating a post-retirement contracted employment system, employers should clearly stipulate in the work rules and employment contracts the conditions, evaluation criteria, and procedures for re-employment/renewal, and manage actual practices consistently in line with those provisions. In considering a refusal to renew, employers should, as in this case, organize concrete evidence of performance issues through objective materials such as audit reports, performance evaluations, and complaint records, and follow procedures that ensure fairness, such as a vote by representatives of the residents, so that they can demonstrate the existence of “reasonable grounds.” 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which the expectation of re-employment under a fixed-term employment contract was recognized, but the relief application was dismissed on the ground that the employer’s refusal to re-employ was based on reasonable grounds. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Whether an Expectation of Re-employment under the Employment Contract Was Recognized The employee’s employment contract had been renewed annually for 11 years. Under the work rules, he could continue to work as a contracted employee even after reaching the mandatory retirement age, and in fact his contract had been renewed after retirement. Taken together, these circumstances established a relationship of trust that the employment contract would be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions, and therefore an expectation of re-employment was recognized. b. Whether Reasonable Grounds Existed for the Refusal to Re-employ The audit report repeatedly identified the building manager’s inadequate performance and neglect of duties. In particular, the arrears in management fees and the embezzlement by the accounting staff appeared to have resulted from the manager’s failure to supervise. Considering that the employer notified him of these problems in advance and, through a vote by the representatives of the residents, decided not to renew his contract, there were reasonable grounds for refusing renewal, and thus the refusal to re-employ was justified. [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Relief Interest·Refusal of Re-employment (Post-Retirement Contracted Employee)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Appropriateness of Disciplinary Sanctions (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expectation of re-employment (audit findings regarding building manager), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, performance evaluation·poor performance, 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 Precedents” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Sanction (Responsibility for Unauthorized Substitute Lessons)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of precedents related to expectation of re-employment (audit findings regarding building manager) can be found in the “List of Precedents on Expectation of Re-employment (Audit Findings Regarding Building Manager).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article