[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “expectation of reemployment (audit findings on the building manager).” Decision Body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1373 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-06-26 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: a. --- 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an apartment building manager who had his employment contract renewed for 11 years and, after reaching the mandatory retirement age, was rehired as a post‑retirement contract worker (choktaksik). When the employer later decided not to renew his contract any further, the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal. The employee argued that, under the work rules, he could continue working as a contract worker even after retirement age and that, in practice, his contract had been renewed several times, thereby giving rise to an expectation of reemployment. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the refusal to reemploy was justified based on the building manager’s performance issues revealed in an audit report. Ⅱ. Issues The issues in this case are: “(i) whether an expectation of reemployment (contract renewal) can be recognized for a building manager whose employment contract was repeatedly renewed as a post‑retirement contract worker, and (ii) whether the refusal to reemploy on the grounds of work‑related negligence and lack of supervision identified in the audit report constitutes a reasonable ground sufficient to negate such expectation.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case recognized that the employee had an expectation of reemployment, in light of the following: the employee’s employment contract had been renewed every year for 11 years; the work rules contemplated post‑retirement employment as a contract worker; the contract was in fact renewed even after the employee reached retirement age; and, taken together, these circumstances created a relationship of trust that reemployment would be provided upon satisfaction of certain conditions. The employee argued that the refusal to reemploy constituted unfair dismissal. However, the Commission found that there were reasonable grounds, acceptable under social norms, for the refusal to reemploy, based on the following: the audit report repeatedly confirmed the building manager’s inadequate performance and neglect of duties; in particular, the arrears in maintenance fees and the embezzlement by the accounting staff appeared to have resulted from the building manager’s failure to supervise; and the employer had recognized the need to replace the building manager in order to rectify these problems. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even fixed‑term or post‑retirement contract workers may acquire a certain expectation of reemployment through long‑term repeated renewals, post‑retirement reemployment practices, and the content of work rules or collective agreements. However, even where an expectation of renewal is recognized, the employer’s refusal to reemploy may be deemed to have reasonable grounds if there is objective evidence—such as audit reports or performance evaluations—showing insufficient job performance, lack of supervision, or repeated work‑related errors. It is therefore important to keep records of your work and materials evidencing efforts at improvement on an ongoing basis. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) When operating post‑retirement contract positions or repeatedly renewing fixed‑term employment contracts, HR strategy must be designed on the premise that work rules, employment contracts, and in‑house practices may create an expectation of reemployment for employees. If refusal of reemployment is necessary, the employer should organize, in concrete terms, the business necessity and the employee’s job‑related limitations through objective materials such as audit reports, performance evaluations, and business conditions, and should clearly set out the criteria and procedures for reemployment in written form, so that reasonable grounds can later be recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Recognition of Expectation of Reemployment under the Employment Contract The employee’s employment contract had been renewed every year for 11 years. Under the work rules, he was able to continue working as a contract worker even after reaching retirement age, and in fact his contract was renewed after retirement. Taken together, these circumstances created a relationship of trust that the employment contract would be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions; therefore, an expectation of reemployment was recognized. b. Existence of Reasonable Grounds for Refusal of Reemployment The audit report repeatedly confirmed the building manager’s inadequate performance and neglect of duties; in particular, the arrears in maintenance fees and the embezzlement by the accounting staff appeared to have resulted from the building manager’s failure to supervise; the employer, in order to address these issues, had recognized the need to replace the building manager, and thus… 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings a. Recognition of Expectation of Reemployment under the Employment Contract The employee’s employment contract had been renewed every year for 11 years. Under the work rules, he was able to continue working as a contract worker even after reaching retirement age, and in fact his contract was renewed after retirement. Taken together, these circumstances created a relationship of trust that the employment contract would be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions; therefore, an expectation of reemployment was recognized. b. Existence of Reasonable Grounds for Refusal of Reemployment The audit report repeatedly confirmed the building manager’s inadequate performance and neglect of duties; in particular, the arrears in maintenance fees and the embezzlement by the accounting staff appeared to have resulted from the building manager’s failure to supervise; the employer, in order to address these issues, had recognized the need to replace the building manager, and thus… / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Responsibility for Unauthorized Substitute Lessons)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expectation of reemployment (audit findings on the 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Responsibility for Unauthorized Substitute Lessons)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to expectation of reemployment (audit findings on the building manager) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Reemployment (Audit Findings on the Building Manager).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article