[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “agreement on contract term (signature on third employment contract).” Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2573 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-04 · Case outcome: Dismissed Key issue summary: ① 2026. --- 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a fixed-term employee expected to continue working even after the expiry of the contract term. When the employer terminated the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the employment contract, the employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, alleging unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission focused on the validity of the third employment contract executed on 19 January 2026 and on whether the resulting termination upon expiry of the contract term was justified. It ultimately rejected the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the third employment contract, which the employee personally signed, clearly specifies the employment period (1 January 2026 to 28 February 2026) and states that the previous contract is revoked, the employee can nonetheless challenge the termination as unfair dismissal by arguing that they did not properly recognize the change in the contract term, or that the employer engaged in deceit or duress. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel noted that the third employment contract clearly states that the employment period runs from 1 January 2026 to 28 February 2026, that the previous employment contract is revoked, and that the employee personally signed this contract. In light of the contents of the KakaoTalk messages the employee sent to the employer, it was difficult to find that the employee was entirely unaware that the contract term had been changed to end on 28 February 2026, unlike the previous contract. Moreover, no objective evidence was found to recognize any defect in the employee’s manifestation of intent due to the employer’s deceit or duress. Accordingly, the Commission held that the termination in this case should be regarded as an automatic termination upon expiry of the fixed-term employment contract, and that it does not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Where the employment contract specifies a term, it is, in principle, treated according to its wording as a “fixed-term employment contract.” Absent special circumstances such as long-term repeated renewals or an employer’s conduct guaranteeing renewal, it is difficult to invoke, as-is, the legal principles restricting dismissal that apply to open-ended contracts or collective redundancies. In particular, as in this case, where the employee personally signed the third employment contract and there is contextual evidence such as KakaoTalk messages in which the employee themselves engaged in discussions premised on the agreed contract term, it is very difficult to persuade the Labor Relations Commission afterwards that the employee “did not properly recognize the term” or that there was “deceit or duress.” Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when entering into or renewing a fixed-term employment contract, it is important to clearly specify in the contract the contract term and the effect of the previous contract (including whether it is revoked), and to retain signatures and electronic records (emails, KakaoTalk messages, etc.) that objectively show the employee fully recognized and was given an explanation of these points. In addition, if practices develop regarding contract renewals, conversion to regular employment, or criteria and procedures for renewal, the courts may recognize an “expectation of renewal” or treat the relationship as a de facto open-ended contract. In such cases, separate legal principles restricting dismissal, similar to those applicable to collective redundancies, may apply. Employers should therefore maintain consistent policies and documentation practices in managing fixed-term employment so that such dismissal restrictions do not inadvertently apply. This decision by the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission is a good illustration of how strongly the wording of the employment contract, the parties’ signatures, and actual communications such as KakaoTalk messages can operate as evidence in unfair dismissal cases. Both employees and employers are advised to consult experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& from the contract stage onward to minimize the potential for disputes. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History ① The third employment contract executed on 19 January 2026 clearly specifies that the employment period runs from 1 January 2026 to 28 February 2026, and states that the previous employment contract is revoked, and the employee in this case personally signed it. ② In light of the contents of the KakaoTalk messages that the employee sent to the employer in this case, it is difficult to find that the employee was entirely unaware that the employment period, unlike the previous contract, had been changed to end on 28 February 2026. Furthermore, no objective evidence has been identified that would support a finding of any defect in the employee’s manifestation of intent due to the employer’s deceit or duress... 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning ① The third employment contract executed on 19 January 2026 clearly specifies that the employment period runs from 1 January 2026 to 28 February 2026, and states that the previous employment contract is revoked, and the employee in this case personally signed it. ② In light of the contents of the KakaoTalk messages that the employee sent to the employer in this case, it is difficult to find that the employee was entirely unaware that the employment period, unlike the previous contract, had been changed to end on 28 February 2026. Furthermore, no objective evidence has been identified that would support a finding of any defect in the employee’s manifestation of intent due to the employer’s deceit or duress... / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Collective Redundancy (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: Original decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, agreement on contract term (signature on third employment 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (No Open Recruitment or Open-Ended Contract Practice)’,” in a new window. ※ You can also view the list of decisions relating to agreement on contract term (signature on third employment contract) at “List of Decisions Relating to Agreement on Contract Term (Signature on Third Employment Contract).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article