[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (three-month probationary site manager).” Decision Committee: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae303 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-09-07 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: … the fact that the term of employment and its commencement and end dates were clearly specified in the employment contract; the fact that the rules of employment stipulated that the employment contract period for new hires would be three months and that the matter would be submitted to the residents’ representative council one month before the contract end date for decision by majority vote; the fact that the employee referred to himself as a probationary site manager, thereby recognizing that the employment relationship was formed on the premise of a three‑month period; and the fact that the application for remedy was filed after the contract period specified in the employment contract had already expired, etc. … 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, an employee hired as a probationary site manager of an apartment complex filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, but the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that there was no remaining interest in relief. The employment contract and the rules of employment clearly stipulated a three‑month probationary/contract period, and the employee filed the application with the Labor Relations Commission only after that period had expired. The Commission held that, because the employment period had already expired and the employee had ceased to hold employee status at the time of filing, any order for reinstatement to the original position or payment of wages in lieu thereof could not in practice be realized, and therefore there was no interest in relief. Among the various unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, this case is a good illustration of the criteria for determining the existence of relief interest for “fixed‑term/probationary” employees. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issue in this case was whether an employee who had entered into a fixed‑term employment contract as a three‑month probationary site manager still had an interest in relief in an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed after the contract period had already expired. In other words, before examining the legitimacy of the dismissal itself, the core question was whether the Labor Relations Commission could provide substantive relief—such as an order for reinstatement to the original position—and, as a prerequisite, whether there existed any interest in relief. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case took into account the following: that a fixed‑term contract with clearly specified commencement and end dates had been concluded in the employment contract; that the rules of employment stipulated a three‑month employment contract period for new hires and provided that the question of extension would be decided by resolution of the residents’ representative council; that the employee himself recognized that he was working on the premise of a three‑month, time‑limited employment relationship, referring to himself as a “probationary site manager”; and, above all, that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed only after the fixed contract period had already expired. The Commission found that, since the employment relationship had naturally terminated upon expiration of the contract period, the employee’s status as an employee had already ceased at the time of the application, regardless of the validity of the dismissal. Accordingly, it was not possible to realize reinstatement or continued employment through a remedial order of the Labor Relations Commission. Relying on the legal principle established by the Supreme Court that “where a fixed‑term employment contract has expired and the employment relationship has ended, any interests such as wages for the dismissal period or benefits relating to severance pay calculations may be pursued through civil litigation, and therefore the interest in relief in Labor Relations Commission proceedings is extinguished,” the Commission held that there was no interest in relief in this case as well. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, it is essential first to confirm accurately whether the employment contract concluded is a “fixed‑term contract (with a specified contract period),” an “indefinite‑term contract,” or, even if labeled “probationary/trial,” how the period has been set. If you believe you have been unfairly dismissed, you must promptly file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission before the employment contract expires. You should be aware that, if you file after the contract has expired, there is a very high risk that your application will be rejected or dismissed for lack of interest in relief, as in this case. In addition, even in the case of probationary/trial employment, the legal assessment may differ depending on whether there have in fact been repeated renewals over a long period or whether a legitimate expectation of conversion to regular employment (renewal expectation right) has arisen. It is therefore important to secure, at an early stage, relevant materials such as the employment contract, rules of employment, and HR practices. Monetary claims such as wages during the dismissal period and severance pay calculations may need to be resolved separately through civil litigation rather than through the Labor Relations Commission, so you should consult in advance with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& regarding the division of roles between applications for remedy and civil lawsuits. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is advantageous in the event of a dispute to clearly specify the commencement and end dates of the contract period in the employment contracts of fixed‑term/probationary/trial employees, and to set out in the rules of employment detailed provisions on the contract period for new hires, extension procedures, and the structure for evaluation and decision‑making. In particular, in management‑site workplaces such as apartment site managers, security, and cleaning, where employees are hired on a temporary basis as “probationary site managers,” the employer should clearly inform the employee of the probationary/fixed‑term nature of the employment and retain evidence that the employee is aware of this (e.g., the employee’s own descriptions, written acknowledgments). However, where dismissal or refusal of regular employment is based on probation/trial while there is still remaining contract period, it still constitutes a “dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act, and just cause and proper procedures are required. Rather than relying on issues of relief interest as in this case, companies should bear in mind that the most effective approach is to design objective and fair suitability evaluation criteria and procedures from the outset, and to retain evaluation records in order to prevent unfair dismissal disputes. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History … the fact that the term of employment and its commencement and end dates were clearly specified in the employment contract; the fact that the rules of employment stipulated that the employment contract period for new hires would be three months and that the matter would be submitted to the residents’ representative council one month before the contract end date for decision by majority vote; the fact that the employee referred to himself as a probationary site manager, thereby recognizing that the employment relationship was formed on the premise of a three‑month period; and the fact that the application for remedy was filed after the contract period specified in the employment contract had already expired, etc. When these factors are considered together, it is clear that, regardless of the validity of the dismissal, the employee had already ceased to hold employee status at the time of the application for remedy, and thus any interest in obtaining a remedial order from the Labor Relations Commission had been extinguished. Accordingly, there is no interest in relief. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … the fact that the term of employment and its commencement and end dates were clearly specified in the employment contract; the fact that the rules of employment stipulated that the employment contract period for new hires would be three months and that the matter would be submitted to the residents’ representative council one month before the contract end date for decision by majority vote; the fact that the employee referred to himself as a probationary site manager, thereby recognizing that the employment relationship was formed on the premise of a three‑month period; and the fact that the application for remedy was filed after the contract period specified in the employment contract had already expired, etc. When these factors are considered together, it is clear that, regardless of the validity of the dismissal, the employee had already ceased to hold employee status at the time of the application for remedy, and thus any interest in obtaining a remedial order from the Labor Relations Commission had been extinguished. Accordingly, there is no interest in relief. / [See More Related Decisions] - “‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: - Case result: Dismissed - “‘Absence of Just Cause (Lack of Communication · Poor Performance)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” - “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (three‑month probationary site manager), dismissal during trial period, 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, “‘Absence of Just Cause (Lack of Communication · Poor Performance)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ You can view the list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (three‑month probationary site manager) at “List of Decisions on Extinction of Relief Interest (Three‑Month Probationary Site Manager).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article