[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “defect in written notice (continued employment after expiry of fixed term).” Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae592 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-08-04 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld Summary of key issues: A. Whether a dismissal existed Even if the amended employment contract stated the employment end date as 25 May 2026, the employer’s notice to the employees on 29 May 2026 (effective 31 May 2026) terminating their employment contracts must be viewed as bringing the employment relationship to an end by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, given that the employees actually provided work until 31 May 2026. Accordingly, it is reasonable to find that a “dismissal” existed. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the issue was whether the employer’s action constituted unfair dismissal where the employer, relying on an amended employment contract that specified 25 May 2026 as the contract end date, notified the employees at the end of May that their employment contracts were terminated. The employees in fact continued to work until 31 May 2026 and, asserting that the employment relationship was then terminated by the employer’s unilateral notice, filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is: “In a situation where the employer asserts that the fixed term has expired, but the employee actually continues to work beyond that term, does the employer’s unilateral notice of termination of the employment contract constitute a ‘dismissal’? If it does, does it amount to unfair dismissal due to a violation of the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that the employer gave notice of termination of the employment contracts to the employees on 29 May 2026 (effective 31 May 2026); that, although the amended employment contract stated 25 May 2026 as the end date, the employees in fact provided work until 31 May 2026; and that the employment relationship was terminated not by the employees’ voluntary resignation but by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent. Accordingly, it held that the employment relationship did not automatically expire upon the end of the contract term, but was instead terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, and therefore a “dismissal” existed. The Commission further held that this dismissal was unfair, as there was a serious procedural defect: when dismissing the employees, the employer failed to comply with the obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide written notice stating the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal. As a result, the dismissal could not be recognized as justified and was found to be an unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even if an employment contract specifies an end date, if you continue to report to work and perform your duties beyond that date, it may be recognized not as a simple expiry of the term but in effect as an extension of the term or as continued employment. In addition, if the employer notifies you of “contract termination” only verbally or by text message, this may constitute a violation of the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, creating a possibility of obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal. You should therefore secure concrete evidence of the circumstances of the notice and of the fact that you continued to provide work at the time. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) If you intend to terminate the employment relationship of a fixed-term employee based on the contract period, you must carefully review your labor management practices to determine whether you are in fact allowing the employee to provide work up to the contract end date, and whether you are permitting continued work beyond that date. When dismissing an employee or taking any measure that in substance amounts to a dismissal, you must, in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, provide in advance a written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal. If you attempt to substitute this with oral notice, text messages, or reporting loss of coverage under the four major social insurances, there is a very high risk that the Labor Relations Commission or the courts will find the dismissal to be unfair. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether a dismissal existed Even if the amended employment contract shows 25 May 2026 as the employment end date, the employer’s notice to the employees on 29 May 2026 (effective 31 May 2026) terminating their employment contracts must be viewed as bringing the employment relationship to an end by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, given that the employees actually provided work until 31 May 2026. Accordingly, it is reasonable to find that a dismissal existed. B. Whether the dismissal was justified The employer violated the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employees, and therefore the dismissal was unfair. C. Whether to grant the application for an order of monetary compensation As to the employees’ application for … 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Whether a dismissal existed Even if the amended employment contract shows 25 May 2026 as the employment end date, the employer’s notice to the employees on 29 May 2026 (effective 31 May 2026) terminating their employment contracts must be viewed as bringing the employment relationship to an end by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent, given that the employees actually provided work until 31 May 2026. Accordingly, it is reasonable to find that a dismissal existed. B. Whether the dismissal was justified The employer violated the written notice requirement for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act when dismissing the employees, and therefore the dismissal was unfair. C. Whether to grant the application for an order of monetary compensation As to the employees’ application for … / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Ordinary Dismissal (Conversion of Insolvent Financial Institution to Bridge Insurance Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (continued employment after expiry of fixed term), others, 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. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Ordinary Dismissal (Conversion of Insolvent Financial Institution to Bridge Insurance Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to defect in written notice (continued employment after expiry of fixed term) can be found in the “Defect in Written Notice (Continued Employment After Expiry of Fixed Term) Related Decisions” list. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article