This case on the issue of “expectation of reemployment after retirement age (hall serving fixed‑term position)” ended with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the claim). Adjudicating Body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission Case No. 2026부해280 – Unfair Dismissal Relief Application Decision date: 2026‑08‑25 · Result: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: A. Whether an expectation of reemployment after retirement age exists: The work rules provided that an employee who reaches the mandatory retirement age may be hired as a fixed‑term (contract) employee if certain requirements are met; the hall serving work performed by the employee constituted regular and continuous duties; and on 2025. 12. 31, the employer convened a Fixed‑Term Hiring Review Committee and resolved to reemploy as fixed‑term employees five individuals (Lee ○○○, Kim ○○○, Gong ○○○, Park ○○○, Cho ○○○) who had passed the retirement age, and actually hired them as such… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, a hall serving employee who had reached the mandatory retirement age expected to be reemployed after retirement as a fixed‑term (contract) employee. When the employer refused to reemploy the worker, the worker filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the work rules and the employer’s past practice of reemploying retirees on fixed‑term contracts, and focused its analysis on whether the employee had a reasonable expectation of being reemployed as a fixed‑term employee after retirement. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether “a hall serving employee who has passed the mandatory retirement age can, based on the work rules and the company’s reemployment practices, have a reasonable ‘expectation of reemployment after retirement age’ in a fixed‑term position, and whether there existed justifiable ‘reasonable grounds’ for the employer’s refusal to reemploy.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that: the work rules contained a provision that an employee who has reached the mandatory retirement age may be hired as a fixed‑term employee if certain requirements are met; the hall serving work performed by the employee constituted regular and continuous duties; and on 2025. 12. 31, the employer convened a Fixed‑Term Hiring Review Committee and, as a precedent, resolved to reemploy and actually hired five individuals who had passed the retirement age as fixed‑term employees. In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the employee had a reasonable expectation of being reemployed as a fixed‑term employee. Although, as a general rule, existing case law has strictly limited recognition of an expectation of renewal in relation to fixed‑term contracts after retirement age, in this case the explicit provisions in the work rules combined with the employer’s actual reemployment practices were deemed sufficient to establish such an expectation. Accordingly, in order for the employer to exclude an employee from reemployment, the employer would have to specifically prove “reasonable grounds” that can be regarded as socially acceptable, such as diminished job performance, poor work attitude, or business necessity. The hearing proceeded on this premise. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is necessary to carefully check how the work rules and collective agreements define the conditions for hiring or reemploying workers as fixed‑term employees after retirement age, and what criteria and procedures the company has actually applied in reemploying retirees. In particular, cases where retirees continued to perform the same regular and continuous duties after retirement, resolutions of the Fixed‑Term Hiring Review Committee, and examples of reemployment of the employee concerned and colleagues can serve as key evidence before the Labor Relations Commission to prove the existence of an “expectation of reemployment.” Employees should therefore secure, as far as possible, relevant documents, notices, minutes, and similar records. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, if the work rules provide for hiring employees as fixed‑term employees after retirement age, it is important to define the requirements, procedures, and evaluation criteria as concretely as possible and to operate the system consistently in accordance with those criteria. In addition, when refusing reemployment after retirement age, it is not sufficient to rely merely on the fact of old age. Specific and objective reasons—such as job performance, work attitude, health condition, or business necessity—should be documented in writing. Doing so increases the likelihood that such reasons will be recognized as “reasonable grounds” by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether an expectation of reemployment after retirement age exists: The work rules provide that an employee who has reached the mandatory retirement age may be hired as a fixed‑term employee if certain requirements are met; the hall serving work performed by the employee constitutes regular and continuous duties; and on 2025. 12. 31, the employer convened a Fixed‑Term Hiring Review Committee and resolved to reemploy as fixed‑term employees five individuals (Lee ○○○, Kim ○○○, Gong ○○○, Park ○○○, Cho ○○○) who had passed the retirement age, and actually hired them. In light of these circumstances, the employee is recognized as having a reasonable expectation of being reemployed as a fixed‑term employee. B. Whether there existed reasonable grounds for refusal of reemployment: … 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether an expectation of reemployment after retirement age exists: The work rules provide that an employee who has reached the mandatory retirement age may be hired as a fixed‑term employee if certain requirements are met; the hall serving work performed by the employee constitutes regular and continuous duties; and on 2025. 12. 31, the employer convened a Fixed‑Term Hiring Review Committee and resolved to reemploy as fixed‑term employees five individuals (Lee ○○○, Kim ○○○, Gong ○○○, Park ○○○, Cho ○○○) who had passed the retirement age, and actually hired them. In light of these circumstances, the employee is recognized as having a reasonable expectation of being reemployed as a fixed‑term employee. B. Whether there existed reasonable grounds for refusal of reemployment: … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Voluntary Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Written Notice (Reporting Loss of Four Major Social Insurance Qualifications)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision result: First‑instance decision upheld [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expectation of reemployment after retirement age (hall serving fixed‑term position), 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&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Voluntary Resignation (Submission of Resignation Letter)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to expectation of reemployment after retirement age (hall serving fixed‑term position) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions on Expectation of Reemployment After Retirement Age (Hall Serving Fixed‑Term Position).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article