Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case Concerning “Reaching the Mandatory Retirement Age (Refusal of Renewal)” (Unfair Dismissal 500)
- Date2026/06/06 04:22
- Read 45
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reaching the mandatory retirement age (refusal of renewal).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026-Buhae-135 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.18 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee argued that, at the time of hiring, he was employed on the condition that the mandatory retirement age would not apply to him and therefore no retirement age existed in his case. However, neither the submitted employment contract nor the audio recordings showed any circumstances supporting an agreement to exclude the employee from the retirement age stipulated in the work rules, and there was no other evidence to prove such an agreement.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee expected to be able to continue working even after reaching the mandatory retirement age. The company, however, treated the employment relationship as terminated on the ground that the employee had reached that retirement age, whereupon the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employer’s action constituted a dismissal, taking into account the employee’s assertions, the retirement provisions in the work rules, and the circumstances surrounding the extension of the retirement age and the offer of re-employment on a fixed-term basis.
The employee claimed that, by agreement with the employer at the time of hiring, the retirement provisions would not apply to him. The Commission reviewed the employment contract, audio recordings, and the actual practice of contract renewals to determine whether such an agreement could be recognized.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee claims that an oral agreement was made at the time of hiring to exclude him from the mandatory retirement age, and the employment relationship is terminated due to reaching the retirement age under the work rules and the employee’s refusal of an offer of re-employment on a fixed-term basis, can this be regarded as an unfair dismissal by the employer?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employer had clearly stipulated a mandatory retirement age in its work rules, and that there was nothing in either the employment contract or the audio recordings to suggest the existence of a special agreement to exclude this particular employee from the retirement provisions. At the time of hiring, the mandatory retirement age was 58, but it was later extended to 60 through an amendment to the work rules, which was actually more favorable to the employee. Under the amended provisions, the employer checked the intention to be re-employed on a fixed-term basis from all five employees, including the employee in this case, who were to reach retirement age in 2025. Of those five, three employees—excluding one who did not respond for personal reasons and the employee in this case—renewed their contracts and are currently still employed.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission evaluated that the employment relationship in this case automatically terminated upon the employee’s reaching the mandatory retirement age under the work rules, and that the employment relationship did not continue further because the employee himself refused the employer’s subsequent offer to enter into a fixed-term employment contract.
Accordingly, the termination of the employee’s employment resulted from the automatic extinguishment of the employment relationship due to reaching the retirement age stipulated in the work rules and from the refusal of the offer of re-employment on a fixed-term basis. It is therefore difficult to find that there was any unilateral dismissal measure by which the employer deprived the employee of his status. The Commission held that no “dismissal disposition” existed in this case, and thus the application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential that key terms and conditions of employment—such as exclusion from the retirement age, extension of the retirement age, or promises of continued employment after retirement—be documented in objective materials such as the employment contract, special provisions to the work rules, or written agreements. It is difficult to have an agreement to exclude the retirement age recognized by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts based solely on oral promises or personal expectations. Employees should also note that retirement upon reaching the mandatory retirement age under the work rules is, in principle, considered automatic retirement rather than dismissal.
In addition, when the company proposes re-employment after retirement on a fixed-term or “contracted” (choktack) basis, it is generally the case that the employment relationship will not be extended if the employee refuses. Employees should therefore make decisions carefully, taking full account of their future livelihood plans and the likelihood of obtaining relief from the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the work rules the mandatory retirement age, grounds for automatic retirement, and the criteria and procedures for re-employment after retirement (on contracted or fixed-term terms), and to operate these provisions consistently in practice. If the employer reviews re-employment for all employees who are about to reach retirement age based on the same criteria and in the same manner, and keeps written records of the process of offering and refusing renewal and of the employee’s intentions, this will be of great help in later unfair dismissal disputes to substantiate that the case involved “automatic retirement and refusal of re-employment,” not dismissal.
Furthermore, where the employer excludes only certain employees from the retirement age or makes special promises to extend their retirement, the content and scope of such agreements should be clearly documented to prevent unnecessary disputes. While decisions on whether to extend the retirement age in individual cases generally fall within the scope of the employer’s managerial prerogative, it is advisable to establish criteria in advance to ensure that there is no discrimination or arbitrary decision-making in the exercise of that prerogative.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that he had been hired on the condition that the mandatory retirement age would be excluded and that, therefore, no retirement age applied to him. However, neither the submitted employment contract nor the audio recordings showed any circumstances indicating that the parties had agreed to exclude the employee from the retirement age stipulated in the work rules, and there was no other evidence to support such a claim. At the time the employee was hired, the mandatory retirement age under the work rules was 58, but the work rules were later amended to extend the retirement age to 60. Under the amended provisions, the employer inquired, by way of fixed-term employment contracts, about the intention to renew from five employees, including the employee in this case, who were to reach retirement age in 2025. Of those five, three employees—excluding one who did not respond for personal reasons and the employee in this case—renewed their contracts and are currently employed by the company. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that the employment relationship in this case was terminated due to the employee’s reaching the mandatory retirement age and his refusal of the offer of fixed-term employment, and that there was no dismissal by the employer.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings
The employee argued that he had been hired on the condition that the mandatory retirement age would be excluded and that, therefore, no retirement age applied to him. However, neither the submitted employment contract nor the audio recordings showed any circumstances indicating that the parties had agreed to exclude the employee from the retirement age stipulated in the work rules, and there was no other evidence to support such a claim. At the time the employee was hired, the mandatory retirement age under the work rules was 58, but the work rules were later amended to extend the retirement age to 60. Under the amended provisions, the employer inquired, by way of fixed-term employment contracts, about the intention to renew from five employees, including the employee in this case, who were to reach retirement age in 2025. Of those five, three employees—excluding one who did not respond for personal reasons and the employee in this case—renewed their contracts and are currently employed by the company. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that the employment relationship in this case was terminated due to the employee’s reaching the mandatory retirement age and his refusal of the offer of fixed-term employment, and that there was no dismissal by the employer. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reaching the mandatory retirement age (refusal of renewal), others, 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 Concerning ‘Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return After End of Leave of Absence)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to reaching the mandatory retirement age (refusal of renewal) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Reaching the Mandatory Retirement Age (Refusal of Renewal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “reaching the mandatory retirement age (refusal of renewal).”
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2026-Buhae-135 ○○○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026.03.18 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employee argued that, at the time of hiring, he was employed on the condition that the mandatory retirement age would not apply to him and therefore no retirement age existed in his case. However, neither the submitted employment contract nor the audio recordings showed any circumstances supporting an agreement to exclude the employee from the retirement age stipulated in the work rules, and there was no other evidence to prove such an agreement.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the employee expected to be able to continue working even after reaching the mandatory retirement age. The company, however, treated the employment relationship as terminated on the ground that the employee had reached that retirement age, whereupon the employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined whether the employer’s action constituted a dismissal, taking into account the employee’s assertions, the retirement provisions in the work rules, and the circumstances surrounding the extension of the retirement age and the offer of re-employment on a fixed-term basis.
The employee claimed that, by agreement with the employer at the time of hiring, the retirement provisions would not apply to him. The Commission reviewed the employment contract, audio recordings, and the actual practice of contract renewals to determine whether such an agreement could be recognized.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where an employee claims that an oral agreement was made at the time of hiring to exclude him from the mandatory retirement age, and the employment relationship is terminated due to reaching the retirement age under the work rules and the employee’s refusal of an offer of re-employment on a fixed-term basis, can this be regarded as an unfair dismissal by the employer?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings
The panel in this case found that the employer had clearly stipulated a mandatory retirement age in its work rules, and that there was nothing in either the employment contract or the audio recordings to suggest the existence of a special agreement to exclude this particular employee from the retirement provisions. At the time of hiring, the mandatory retirement age was 58, but it was later extended to 60 through an amendment to the work rules, which was actually more favorable to the employee. Under the amended provisions, the employer checked the intention to be re-employed on a fixed-term basis from all five employees, including the employee in this case, who were to reach retirement age in 2025. Of those five, three employees—excluding one who did not respond for personal reasons and the employee in this case—renewed their contracts and are currently still employed.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission evaluated that the employment relationship in this case automatically terminated upon the employee’s reaching the mandatory retirement age under the work rules, and that the employment relationship did not continue further because the employee himself refused the employer’s subsequent offer to enter into a fixed-term employment contract.
Accordingly, the termination of the employee’s employment resulted from the automatic extinguishment of the employment relationship due to reaching the retirement age stipulated in the work rules and from the refusal of the offer of re-employment on a fixed-term basis. It is therefore difficult to find that there was any unilateral dismissal measure by which the employer deprived the employee of his status. The Commission held that no “dismissal disposition” existed in this case, and thus the application for remedy for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, it is essential that key terms and conditions of employment—such as exclusion from the retirement age, extension of the retirement age, or promises of continued employment after retirement—be documented in objective materials such as the employment contract, special provisions to the work rules, or written agreements. It is difficult to have an agreement to exclude the retirement age recognized by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts based solely on oral promises or personal expectations. Employees should also note that retirement upon reaching the mandatory retirement age under the work rules is, in principle, considered automatic retirement rather than dismissal.
In addition, when the company proposes re-employment after retirement on a fixed-term or “contracted” (choktack) basis, it is generally the case that the employment relationship will not be extended if the employee refuses. Employees should therefore make decisions carefully, taking full account of their future livelihood plans and the likelihood of obtaining relief from the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the work rules the mandatory retirement age, grounds for automatic retirement, and the criteria and procedures for re-employment after retirement (on contracted or fixed-term terms), and to operate these provisions consistently in practice. If the employer reviews re-employment for all employees who are about to reach retirement age based on the same criteria and in the same manner, and keeps written records of the process of offering and refusing renewal and of the employee’s intentions, this will be of great help in later unfair dismissal disputes to substantiate that the case involved “automatic retirement and refusal of re-employment,” not dismissal.
Furthermore, where the employer excludes only certain employees from the retirement age or makes special promises to extend their retirement, the content and scope of such agreements should be clearly documented to prevent unnecessary disputes. While decisions on whether to extend the retirement age in individual cases generally fall within the scope of the employer’s managerial prerogative, it is advisable to establish criteria in advance to ensure that there is no discrimination or arbitrary decision-making in the exercise of that prerogative.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employee argued that he had been hired on the condition that the mandatory retirement age would be excluded and that, therefore, no retirement age applied to him. However, neither the submitted employment contract nor the audio recordings showed any circumstances indicating that the parties had agreed to exclude the employee from the retirement age stipulated in the work rules, and there was no other evidence to support such a claim. At the time the employee was hired, the mandatory retirement age under the work rules was 58, but the work rules were later amended to extend the retirement age to 60. Under the amended provisions, the employer inquired, by way of fixed-term employment contracts, about the intention to renew from five employees, including the employee in this case, who were to reach retirement age in 2025. Of those five, three employees—excluding one who did not respond for personal reasons and the employee in this case—renewed their contracts and are currently employed by the company. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that the employment relationship in this case was terminated due to the employee’s reaching the mandatory retirement age and his refusal of the offer of fixed-term employment, and that there was no dismissal by the employer.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings
The employee argued that he had been hired on the condition that the mandatory retirement age would be excluded and that, therefore, no retirement age applied to him. However, neither the submitted employment contract nor the audio recordings showed any circumstances indicating that the parties had agreed to exclude the employee from the retirement age stipulated in the work rules, and there was no other evidence to support such a claim. At the time the employee was hired, the mandatory retirement age under the work rules was 58, but the work rules were later amended to extend the retirement age to 60. Under the amended provisions, the employer inquired, by way of fixed-term employment contracts, about the intention to renew from five employees, including the employee in this case, who were to reach retirement age in 2025. Of those five, three employees—excluding one who did not respond for personal reasons and the employee in this case—renewed their contracts and are currently employed by the company. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found that the employment relationship in this case was terminated due to the employee’s reaching the mandatory retirement age and his refusal of the offer of fixed-term employment, and that there was no dismissal by the employer. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of decision: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, reaching the mandatory retirement age (refusal of renewal), others, 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 Concerning ‘Unauthorized Absence (Failure to Return After End of Leave of Absence)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to reaching the mandatory retirement age (refusal of renewal) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Reaching the Mandatory Retirement Age (Refusal of Renewal).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
