[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “fixed-term employee (three-month ultra-short contract).” Decision Committee: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해165 ○ ○ ○ Unfair Dismissal Relief Application 2026-09-22 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: □ Whether the worker qualifies as an employee employed under a fixed-term employment contract ○ There were no provisions in the company’s rules of employment that provide a basis for fixed-term employment contracts or set out procedures upon expiry; in practice, no specific criteria had been established for deciding whether to extend such contracts. The employment contract specified a three-month contract period, there was no history of repeated renewals, and the continuous service period did not exceed two years. The phrase “possible extension of the period upon mutual agreement” merely indicated a possibility and did not render the contract term a mere formality. In light of these circumstances, … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker who had entered into a three-month employment contract claimed unfair dismissal and filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission after the contract was not renewed upon expiry. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the employment contract, the rules of employment, and the actual renewal practices, and focused its analysis on whether this worker was an employee employed for a fixed term and whether a legitimate expectation of renewal (renewal expectation right) could be recognized. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case is whether a “three-month fixed-term employment contract” was merely a formality such that, in substance, it should be regarded as an employment contract with no fixed term, and, if not, whether the worker had a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract (renewal expectation right) such that the refusal to renew would constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that there were no separate provisions in the company’s rules of employment providing a basis for fixed-term employment contracts or procedures upon expiry, and that no specific criteria had been established in practice for determining whether to extend such contracts. The employment contract clearly specified a three-month contract period, there was no history of repeated renewals, and the continuous service period did not exceed two years. The phrase “possible extension of the period upon mutual agreement” merely left open the possibility of extension, and it was difficult to regard the contract term as having been set only in form. On this basis, the panel held that the worker was an employee employed for a fixed term. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has recognized “cases where the contract term is merely formal” or “cases where a renewal expectation right has been formed” only in very exceptional circumstances, based on a comprehensive assessment of the content of the employment contract, the motives and background of its conclusion, renewal practices for comparable employees, and the existence of conditions and procedures for renewal. In this case, there was no evidence of long-term repeated renewals or of any practices or rules premised on renewal. Taking all of this into account, the Commission concluded that the termination of the employment relationship upon expiry of the contract period could not be regarded as unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) If the employment contract clearly specifies a fixed term, and there is no actual experience of repeated renewals or any practice or rule such as “automatic renewal absent special circumstances,” it is very difficult to assert unfair dismissal solely on the ground that the contract was not renewed upon expiry. When joining a company as a fixed-term employee, it is advisable to secure, in writing where possible (e.g., by email, written notices), explanations and information regarding the contract period, renewal criteria, and the possibility of conversion to regular employment, as well as the company’s practices. Such materials can be important evidence when asserting a renewal expectation right before the Labor Relations Commission in the future. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the company’s standpoint, when engaging fixed-term employees, it is important to state clearly in the employment contract the contract period, the point of termination, and whether and on what criteria renewal will be considered, and to handle renewals and terminations in practice consistently with that wording. In addition, the rules of employment or HR guidelines should set out the purpose of using fixed-term employment contracts and the criteria for renewal, while avoiding language and practices that could unnecessarily be interpreted as “de facto automatic renewal.” It is advisable to consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& in this regard. As in this case, when determining whether unfair dismissal has occurred, the Labor Relations Commission tends to apply very strict standards in assessing whether a renewal expectation right exists, based on a comprehensive review of the wording of the employment contract, the company’s internal rules, and actual renewal practices. Accordingly, it is desirable for both employees and employers to fully understand, from the contract formation stage, the legal principles concerning fixed-term status and renewal possibilities, and to maintain evidence in preparation for potential disputes. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History □ Whether the worker qualifies as an employee employed under a fixed-term employment contract ○ There were no provisions in the company’s rules of employment that provide a basis for fixed-term employment contracts or set out procedures upon expiry; in practice, no specific criteria had been established for deciding whether to extend such contracts. The employment contract set the employment period at three months, there was no history of repeated renewals, and the continuous service period did not exceed two years. The phrase “possible extension of the period upon mutual agreement” merely indicated a possibility and did not render the contract term a mere formality. Taken together, these factors led to the conclusion that the worker was an employee employed for a fixed term. □ Whether the worker had a renewal expectation right under the employment contract … 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning □ Whether the worker qualifies as an employee employed under a fixed-term employment contract ○ There were no provisions in the company’s rules of employment that provide a basis for fixed-term employment contracts or set out procedures upon expiry; in practice, no specific criteria had been established for deciding whether to extend such contracts. The employment contract set the employment period at three months, there was no history of repeated renewals, and the continuous service period did not exceed two years. The phrase “possible extension of the period upon mutual agreement” merely indicated a possibility and did not render the contract term a mere formality. Taken together, these factors led to the conclusion that the worker was an employee employed for a fixed term. □ Whether the worker had a renewal expectation right under the employment contract … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, fixed-term employee (three-month ultra-short contract), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Existence of Renewal Expectation Right (Ophthalmology Coordinator)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions relating to fixed-term employees (three-month ultra-short contracts) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Fixed-Term Employees (Three-Month Ultra-Short Contracts).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article