Corporate trends / Performance record
Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning “Existence of Contract Term (Call Recording)” (Unfair Dismissal 495)
- Date2026/06/04 04:08
- Read 46
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of contract term (call recording).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae108 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.18 · Case Number: Dismissed
Key Issue Summary: The employee claimed to have concluded an employment contract with the employer without a fixed term, but (①) the employment contract specified the contract period as 2025.
1. Legal Implications
This unfair dismissal case was contested before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, which dismissed the employee’s application. The Commission comprehensively considered the employment contract, call recordings, and other surrounding circumstances, and held that the case did not involve an unfair dismissal but rather a termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the contract term. In this respect, the decision provides important practical guidance for the work of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee asserted that he had entered into an employment contract with the employer without a fixed term and, on that basis, filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the unilateral termination of the employment relationship after 31 December 2025 constituted unfair dismissal. The employer argued that the employment contract clearly specified the contract period as running from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, and that the employment relationship automatically ended upon expiry of that term, such that there had been no dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in light of the contract period specified in the written employment contract and the circumstances evidenced by the call recordings, the employee was a worker without a fixed term, or a fixed-term worker whose employment relationship ended upon expiry of the contract term, and consequently whether unfair dismissal is established.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employment contract specified the contract period as 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025 and that the employee had signed this contract; that although the employee claimed to have signed when the contract period section was left blank, there was no objective counterevidence supporting this assertion; that, as a dispositive document, the employment contract must, absent special circumstances, be regarded as evidencing a fixed-term contract according to its wording once its authenticity is recognized; and that in the call recordings between the employee and the team manager, there were repeated references such as “we’ll let you go when the contract period ends,” to which the employee did not raise any objection.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the employee and the employer had concluded a fixed-term employment contract, and that the employment relationship automatically terminated upon expiry of the contract term on 31 December 2025.
Accordingly, the employer could not be regarded as having taken a separate dismissal measure, and the Commission found that there was no dismissal in this case, and therefore no unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees must bear in mind that the signed employment contract becomes the most important piece of evidence in the event of a dispute. If an employee wishes to argue that the contract period section was left blank at the time of signing or that a different agreement existed, it is essential to secure objective materials in advance—such as text messages, emails, or recordings—to increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the court will accept such claims.
In addition, if expressions such as “the employment will end when the contract period ends” are repeatedly used in calls or conversations and the employee raises no particular objection, this may be used as circumstantial evidence that the employee was aware that he or she was on a fixed-term contract. Therefore, if anything is said that differs from the employee’s own understanding, the employee should immediately raise the issue and leave a record.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, this decision confirms that clearly stating the contract period in the employment contract, obtaining the employee’s signature, and retaining the document form the basic line of defense in managing fixed-term employment relationships. Furthermore, during calls and explanatory processes, it is important to consistently inform employees that “the employment will automatically terminate upon expiry of the contract period,” and to manage communications so as not to create unnecessary and ambiguous expectations regarding contract renewal or conversion to regular employment.
Even where the employment relationship ends not by way of redundancy or dismissal but simply by expiry of the contract term, there is a risk that the arrangement may be evaluated as a “formal fixed-term” contract if, in practice, there have been repeated renewals or if the employee has been treated in the same way as regular employees. Employers should therefore regularly review their practices concerning contract renewals, work rules, and collective agreements.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claimed to have entered into an employment contract with the employer without a fixed term. However: (①) the employment contract specified the contract period as 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, and it was confirmed that the employee had signed this contract; (②) although the employee asserted that he had signed when the contract period section of the employment contract was left blank, there was no objective evidence supporting this assertion; (③) as a dispositive document, once the authenticity of the employment contract is recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent set out therein must be acknowledged according to its terms, unless there is clear and convincing counterevidence sufficient to negate its contents; and (④) according to the call recordings between the employee and Team Manager Kim ○○ on 13 November and 28 November 2025, it was confirmed that Team Manager Kim ○○ stated, “When that contract period ends, we’ll let you go,” and “I said we’d cut everyone. When the contract period ends,” and there was no evidence that the employee raised any objection to the employer regarding these statements. In light of these circumstances, it appears that the employee was also aware that he had entered into a fixed-term employment contract. Taken together, the Commission found that the employee and the employer had concluded an employment contract with a fixed term, and that the employment relationship between the parties automatically terminated upon expiry of the contract period on 31 December 2025, and therefore there was no [dismissal].
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee claimed to have entered into an employment contract with the employer without a fixed term. However: (①) the employment contract specified the contract period as 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, and it was confirmed that the employee had signed this contract; (②) although the employee asserted that he had signed when the contract period section of the employment contract was left blank, there was no objective evidence supporting this assertion; (③) as a dispositive document, once the authenticity of the employment contract is recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent set out therein must be acknowledged according to its terms, unless there is clear and convincing counterevidence sufficient to negate its contents; and (④) according to the call recordings between the employee and Team Manager Kim ○○ on 13 November and 28 November 2025, it was confirmed that Team Manager Kim ○○ stated, “When that contract period ends, we’ll let you go,” and “I said we’d cut everyone. When the contract period ends,” and there was no evidence that the employee raised any objection to the employer regarding these statements. In light of these circumstances, it appears that the employee was also aware that he had entered into a fixed-term employment contract. Taken together, the Commission found that the employee and the employer had concluded an employment contract with a fixed term, and that the employment relationship between the parties automatically terminated upon expiry of the contract period on 31 December 2025, and therefore there was no [dismissal].
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year Service Contract)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision Date: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of contract term (call recording), 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, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year Service Contract)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to existence of contract term (call recording) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Contract Term (Call Recording).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of contract term (call recording).”
Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae108 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.18 · Case Number: Dismissed
Key Issue Summary: The employee claimed to have concluded an employment contract with the employer without a fixed term, but (①) the employment contract specified the contract period as 2025.
1. Legal Implications
This unfair dismissal case was contested before the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, which dismissed the employee’s application. The Commission comprehensively considered the employment contract, call recordings, and other surrounding circumstances, and held that the case did not involve an unfair dismissal but rather a termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the contract term. In this respect, the decision provides important practical guidance for the work of Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee asserted that he had entered into an employment contract with the employer without a fixed term and, on that basis, filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that the unilateral termination of the employment relationship after 31 December 2025 constituted unfair dismissal. The employer argued that the employment contract clearly specified the contract period as running from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, and that the employment relationship automatically ended upon expiry of that term, such that there had been no dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in light of the contract period specified in the written employment contract and the circumstances evidenced by the call recordings, the employee was a worker without a fixed term, or a fixed-term worker whose employment relationship ended upon expiry of the contract term, and consequently whether unfair dismissal is established.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employment contract specified the contract period as 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025 and that the employee had signed this contract; that although the employee claimed to have signed when the contract period section was left blank, there was no objective counterevidence supporting this assertion; that, as a dispositive document, the employment contract must, absent special circumstances, be regarded as evidencing a fixed-term contract according to its wording once its authenticity is recognized; and that in the call recordings between the employee and the team manager, there were repeated references such as “we’ll let you go when the contract period ends,” to which the employee did not raise any objection.
In light of the above, the Commission held that the employee and the employer had concluded a fixed-term employment contract, and that the employment relationship automatically terminated upon expiry of the contract term on 31 December 2025.
Accordingly, the employer could not be regarded as having taken a separate dismissal measure, and the Commission found that there was no dismissal in this case, and therefore no unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees must bear in mind that the signed employment contract becomes the most important piece of evidence in the event of a dispute. If an employee wishes to argue that the contract period section was left blank at the time of signing or that a different agreement existed, it is essential to secure objective materials in advance—such as text messages, emails, or recordings—to increase the likelihood that the Labor Relations Commission or the court will accept such claims.
In addition, if expressions such as “the employment will end when the contract period ends” are repeatedly used in calls or conversations and the employee raises no particular objection, this may be used as circumstantial evidence that the employee was aware that he or she was on a fixed-term contract. Therefore, if anything is said that differs from the employee’s own understanding, the employee should immediately raise the issue and leave a record.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, this decision confirms that clearly stating the contract period in the employment contract, obtaining the employee’s signature, and retaining the document form the basic line of defense in managing fixed-term employment relationships. Furthermore, during calls and explanatory processes, it is important to consistently inform employees that “the employment will automatically terminate upon expiry of the contract period,” and to manage communications so as not to create unnecessary and ambiguous expectations regarding contract renewal or conversion to regular employment.
Even where the employment relationship ends not by way of redundancy or dismissal but simply by expiry of the contract term, there is a risk that the arrangement may be evaluated as a “formal fixed-term” contract if, in practice, there have been repeated renewals or if the employee has been treated in the same way as regular employees. Employers should therefore regularly review their practices concerning contract renewals, work rules, and collective agreements.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee claimed to have entered into an employment contract with the employer without a fixed term. However: (①) the employment contract specified the contract period as 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, and it was confirmed that the employee had signed this contract; (②) although the employee asserted that he had signed when the contract period section of the employment contract was left blank, there was no objective evidence supporting this assertion; (③) as a dispositive document, once the authenticity of the employment contract is recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent set out therein must be acknowledged according to its terms, unless there is clear and convincing counterevidence sufficient to negate its contents; and (④) according to the call recordings between the employee and Team Manager Kim ○○ on 13 November and 28 November 2025, it was confirmed that Team Manager Kim ○○ stated, “When that contract period ends, we’ll let you go,” and “I said we’d cut everyone. When the contract period ends,” and there was no evidence that the employee raised any objection to the employer regarding these statements. In light of these circumstances, it appears that the employee was also aware that he had entered into a fixed-term employment contract. Taken together, the Commission found that the employee and the employer had concluded an employment contract with a fixed term, and that the employment relationship between the parties automatically terminated upon expiry of the contract period on 31 December 2025, and therefore there was no [dismissal].
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The employee claimed to have entered into an employment contract with the employer without a fixed term. However: (①) the employment contract specified the contract period as 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, and it was confirmed that the employee had signed this contract; (②) although the employee asserted that he had signed when the contract period section of the employment contract was left blank, there was no objective evidence supporting this assertion; (③) as a dispositive document, once the authenticity of the employment contract is recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent set out therein must be acknowledged according to its terms, unless there is clear and convincing counterevidence sufficient to negate its contents; and (④) according to the call recordings between the employee and Team Manager Kim ○○ on 13 November and 28 November 2025, it was confirmed that Team Manager Kim ○○ stated, “When that contract period ends, we’ll let you go,” and “I said we’d cut everyone. When the contract period ends,” and there was no evidence that the employee raised any objection to the employer regarding these statements. In light of these circumstances, it appears that the employee was also aware that he had entered into a fixed-term employment contract. Taken together, the Commission found that the employee and the employer had concluded an employment contract with a fixed term, and that the employment relationship between the parties automatically terminated upon expiry of the contract period on 31 December 2025, and therefore there was no [dismissal].
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year Service Contract)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement in Telephone Call)’”
- “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision Date: – Case Number: Initial Decision Upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, existence of contract term (call recording), 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, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Concerning ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (One-Year Service Contract)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to existence of contract term (call recording) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Existence of Contract Term (Call Recording).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
