[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “expectation of renewal right (daily worker labeled as fixed-term).” Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae156 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-10 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: A. Whether the worker was a daily worker or a fixed-term worker. Although the employment contract is titled “daily worker” and the wage is set on a daily basis, the contract period was set for 5 days from 27 May 2025 to 31 May 2025, and no separate employment contract was concluded for each day. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the worker’s employment contract was titled “daily worker,” but in practice the worker was used as a short-term fixed-term worker and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the worker’s situation constituted unfair dismissal, focusing on whether an expectation of renewal right (gyeongsin-gidae-gwon) could be recognized where the worker was not subject to redundancy dismissal but simply was not re-contracted after the expiration of the contract period. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is “whether, in a five-day employment contract formally labeled as a daily worker contract, the worker should substantively be regarded as a fixed-term worker, and whether such a fixed-term worker can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract (expectation of renewal right), such that the employer’s refusal to renew constitutes unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case held that, despite the employment contract being titled “daily worker” and the wage being set on a daily basis, the contract period was specifically set for 5 days from 27 May 2025 to 31 May 2025, no separate contract was concluded for each day, and wages were to be paid on the 28th of the following month. In light of these circumstances, the panel determined that the worker in this case was not a true daily worker whose employment commenced and terminated on a one-day basis, but rather a fixed-term worker employed for a specified period. However, the panel also found that there was no provision in either the employment contract or the work rules that could be interpreted as guaranteeing renewal of the contract; that no repeated renewal practice or consistent employer stance such as “continued employment absent any defects” could be identified; and that there were cases among comparable workers where employment ended upon the expiration of the contract period. Taking these and other circumstances into comprehensive consideration, the panel concluded that it was difficult to find that the worker had formed a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract, and that there was insufficient evidence to show that the employer’s refusal to renew was arbitrary or discriminatory. On this basis, the panel held that the refusal to renew in this case did not constitute unfair dismissal and dismissed the worker’s application for a remedy. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) Even if your employment contract states “daily worker,” if in reality you work continuously for a specified period and your wages are settled on a monthly basis, you should be aware that you may have grounds to assert rights as a fixed-term worker. However, to challenge unfair dismissal, it is not enough merely to establish that you are a fixed-term worker. You must prove, with concrete facts and supporting materials, that an expectation of renewal right has been formed due to factors such as repeated renewal practices, practices or rules guaranteeing conversion to regular employment or re-contracting, and similar circumstances. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is risky to assume that the employment relationship can be freely terminated merely because the worker is labeled as a “daily worker.” If, in actual operation, the arrangement is that of a fixed-term worker employed for a specified period, the legal principles on dismissal and renewal under the Act on the Protection, Etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees and the Labor Standards Act may apply in full. Even where there is no redundancy dismissal, employers should clearly set out the criteria and procedures for re-contracting fixed-term workers in work rules, operating guidelines, and similar documents, and maintain actual HR practices consistently in line with those criteria to prevent unnecessary disputes over the expectation of renewal right. This decision of the Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission is a case that clearly illustrates, in the context of unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal disputes frequently handled in practice by Labor Law Firm Law&, how important it is to distinguish between “daily workers” and fixed-term workers and to determine whether an expectation of renewal right is recognized. Both workers and employers should carefully examine the substantive terms of the contract and actual operating practices rather than relying solely on formal labels. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether the worker was a daily worker or a fixed-term worker Although the employment contract is titled “daily worker” and the wage is set on a daily basis, the contract period was set for 5 days from 27 May 2025 to 31 May 2025, and no separate employment contract was concluded for each day. In addition, given that wages were to be paid on the 28th of the following month, the worker in this case is not a daily worker employed on a one-day basis but a fixed-term worker. B. Whether an expectation of renewal right is recognized and whether there was a reasonable ground for refusal to renew There is no provision in the employment contract or the work rules that the employment contract must be renewed, and the worker… 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether the worker was a daily worker or a fixed-term worker Although the employment contract is titled “daily worker” and the wage is set on a daily basis, the contract period was set for 5 days from 27 May 2025 to 31 May 2025, and no separate employment contract was concluded for each day. In addition, given that wages were to be paid on the 28th of the following month, the worker in this case is not a daily worker employed on a one-day basis but a fixed-term worker. B. Whether an expectation of renewal right is recognized and whether there was a reasonable ground for refusal to renew There is no provision in the employment contract or the work rules that the employment contract must be renewed, and the worker… / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Date of decision: - Case result: Initial decision upheld - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)”’ – Date of decision: - Case result: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expectation of renewal right (daily worker labeled as fixed-term), 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&. ※ You can view the previous article, ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Related to “Non-Existence of Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Construction Site Closure Notice)”’, in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions related to expectation of renewal right (daily worker labeled as fixed-term) at “List of Decisions Related to Expectation of Renewal Right (Daily Worker Labeled as Fixed-Term).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article