[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 (no open recruitment / no practice of conversion to indefinite-term contracts).” Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae710 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-07 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: The clause in the employment contract setting out grounds for exclusion from renewal does not mean that renewal is guaranteed, and Article 13(2) of the Rules of Employment recognizes tacit renewal only where neither party gives notice of termination. In this case, the employer delivered a “Notice of Expiration of Contract Term” one month prior to the expiration date, thereby clearly expressing its intention to terminate the employment contract, so the requirements for tacit renewal were not met. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a fixed-term employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after the contract was not renewed upon expiration of the contract term. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. The employee argued that he/she had a legitimate expectation that the employment contract would be renewed, and that the employer’s refusal to renew in violation of that expectation amounted in substance to unfair dismissal. The employer argued that, from the outset, the structure was that the employment relationship would end upon expiration of the fixed term, and that this was not a redundancy dismissal or dismissal but merely a notice of contract expiration. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, where the employment contract contains provisions on “grounds for exclusion from renewal” and the Rules of Employment contain provisions on tacit renewal, but the employer clearly notified the employee of its intention not to renew one month prior to the expiration of the contract, the fixed-term employee can be recognized as having a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract (legitimate expectation of renewal), and furthermore, whether the refusal to renew the contract constitutes unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case held that the provision in the employment contract regarding “grounds for exclusion from renewal” merely means that in certain circumstances the contract may not be renewed, and cannot readily be interpreted as a clause guaranteeing renewal in all other cases. Article 13(2) of the Rules of Employment recognizes tacit renewal only where neither party gives notice of termination, whereas in this case the employer delivered a “Notice of Expiration of Contract Term” one month before the contract expired, thereby clearly expressing its intention to terminate. In addition, the list of employees enrolled in the workplace’s National Health Insurance shows that only three employees had more than two years of continuous service, so no practice of converting fixed-term employees to indefinite-term employees could be confirmed. After expiration of the contract, an open recruitment procedure was conducted, in which five people applied and four were interviewed, and a substantive assessment was carried out for new hiring. In light of the above, it is difficult to view the contract term as a mere formality, and it is also difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed under which the employee could reasonably expect automatic renewal upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Accordingly, the Commission found that no legitimate expectation of renewal existed. Ultimately, it held that no “dismissal” existed in this case, and that the employment relationship simply ended upon expiration of the contract term; therefore, the situation did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, the mere presence of wording such as “grounds for exclusion from renewal” or “tacit renewal” in the employment contract or Rules of Employment does not mean that renewal is automatically guaranteed. It is necessary to comprehensively check whether the contract has in fact been repeatedly renewed, whether there is a practice of converting comparable employees to indefinite-term contracts, and whether the employee received clear notice of contract expiration from the employer prior to the expiration date. In particular, where the employer has clearly expressed its intention to terminate the contract in writing or otherwise before the contract expires, it is, in principle, very difficult to have a legitimate expectation of renewal recognized. Therefore, when preparing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, you should carefully review the evidence based on this legal framework. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer / Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when using fixed-term employment contracts, it is necessary to clearly state in the employment contract the contract term and the structure under which the contract automatically ends, and to clarify that renewal is subject to the employer’s discretion. In addition, before the scheduled expiration date, the employer should notify the employee in writing of the expiration of the contract term and its intention not to renew, so that the requirements for tacit renewal under the Rules of Employment are not met. The employer should also organize its HR and labor management system so that it can prove, through the National Health Insurance enrollee list, personnel records, etc., that there is no practice of conversion to indefinite-term employment. To prevail in disputes over the termination of fixed-term employment contracts of this kind, it is important to have an accurate understanding of Supreme Court precedents on “legitimate expectation of renewal,” and, from the Labor Relations Commission stage, to systematically organize and prove the key facts—such as the contract, Rules of Employment, HR practices, and whether open recruitment was conducted—together with an expert with extensive experience in unfair dismissal and redundancy dismissal cases, such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History The clause in the employment contract setting out grounds for exclusion from renewal does not mean that renewal is guaranteed, and Article 13(2) of the Rules of Employment recognizes tacit renewal only where neither party gives notice of termination. In this case, the employer delivered a “Notice of Expiration of Contract Term” one month prior to the expiration date, thereby clearly expressing its intention to terminate the employment contract, so the requirements for tacit renewal were not met. In addition, a review of the list of employees enrolled in the workplace’s National Health Insurance shows that only three employees had more than two years of continuous service, so no practice of conversion to indefinite-term employment could be confirmed. Five people applied through the open recruitment procedure, four were interviewed, and a substantive assessment of the applicants was carried out, so the employment contract... 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The clause in the employment contract setting out grounds for exclusion from renewal does not mean that renewal is guaranteed, and Article 13(2) of the Rules of Employment recognizes tacit renewal only where neither party gives notice of termination. In this case, the employer delivered a “Notice of Expiration of Contract Term” one month prior to the expiration date, thereby clearly expressing its intention to terminate the employment contract, so the requirements for tacit renewal were not met. In addition, a review of the list of employees enrolled in the workplace’s National Health Insurance shows that only three employees had more than two years of continuous service, so no practice of conversion to indefinite-term employment could be confirmed. Five people applied through the open recruitment procedure, four were interviewed, and a substantive assessment of the applicants was carried out, so the employment contract... / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Conversion from Dispatched to Fixed-Term Employment)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Resignation / Termination by Agreement (Request for Voluntary Resignation Due to Managerial Need)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (no open recruitment / no practice of conversion to indefinite-term contracts), 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 on Resignation / Termination by Agreement (Request for Voluntary Resignation Due to Managerial Need),” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (no open recruitment / no practice of conversion to indefinite-term contracts) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions on Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (No Open Recruitment / No Practice of Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contracts).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article