[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (ophthalmology coordinator).” Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해631 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-10-01 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: Although the employment contract between the parties specified a one-year fixed term and the contract was renewed once, there was no established practice of renewing contracts for ophthalmology coordinators. Therefore, no legitimate expectation of renewal was recognized, and the termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract term was held to be lawful. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a fixed-term employee working as an ophthalmology coordinator had her contract expire, and the employer chose not to renew it. The employee claimed this constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the employment contract, the circumstances of renewal, and the practice of renewal for the ophthalmology coordinator position, and concluded that the termination of the employment relationship due to the expiration of the contract term was lawful. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case was: “Whether an ophthalmology coordinator employed under a one-year fixed-term contract that was renewed once can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal, even in the absence of any separate agreement on conversion to regular employment or any practice of repeated renewals, such that termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract term would constitute unfair dismissal.” The decision panel held that, given that the employment contract between the parties clearly specified a one-year term, that in practice the contract was renewed only once, and that it was difficult to find that there had been a customary practice of repeated renewals of employment contracts for all employees in the same position of ophthalmology coordinator, it was difficult to regard the contract term as a mere formality, and also difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed to the effect that the contract would naturally be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions. The panel therefore held that the termination in this case, as a natural retirement due to expiration of the contract term, did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The Labor Relations Commission relied on the following: first, the employment contract explicitly specified a one-year contract term and clearly provided that the employment relationship would end upon expiration of that term; second, renewal in fact occurred only once, so it could not be said that, through long-term repeated renewals, the contract term had become a mere formality; and third, there was no practice, standard, or procedure in place for the ophthalmology coordinator position as a whole under which contracts would naturally be renewed in the absence of particular issues. Taking these circumstances together, the Commission found that the employee could not be recognized as having a legitimate expectation that the contract would “continue to be renewed,” and therefore the termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract term was lawful. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) If you are working under a fixed-term employment contract, you should be aware that the mere fact of having renewed your contract once or twice does not, by itself, establish a legitimate expectation of renewal. To be in a favorable position in an unfair dismissal dispute, there generally needs to be a consistent practice or agreement—considering the wording of the employment contract, the company’s HR regulations and work rules, and the renewal practices for comparable employees—to the level of “contracts are continuously renewed absent special circumstances.” Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when entering into a fixed-term employment contract, it is important to clearly specify in the contract the contract period, whether it may be renewed, and the criteria for renewal, and to operate in a manner that is consistent with those terms. Unlike redundancy dismissals, termination due to expiration of a fixed term is in principle lawful; however, if renewals are repeatedly granted and the employee is treated in a manner similar to a regular employee, a legitimate expectation of renewal may be recognized, potentially leading to an unfair dismissal dispute. Accordingly, employers should avoid unnecessary practices of “automatic renewal” and vague promises of conversion to regular employment. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History Although the employment contract between the parties specified a one-year contract term, the contract was renewed only once, and there was no established practice of renewing contracts for ophthalmology coordinators. Therefore, no legitimate expectation of renewal was recognized, and the termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract term was held to be lawful. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Although the employment contract between the parties specified a one-year contract term, the contract was renewed only once, and there was no established practice of renewing contracts for ophthalmology coordinators. Therefore, no legitimate expectation of renewal was recognized, and the termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract term was held to be lawful. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Initial decision upheld - “‘Genuineness of Intention to Resign (Taxi Driver Departing with Door Open)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (ophthalmology coordinator), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Genuineness of Intention to Resign (Taxi Driver Departing with Door Open)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ You can view the list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (ophthalmology coordinator) on the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Ophthalmology Coordinator)” page. ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article