Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Case on “Expectation of Renewal (Performance Evaluation Score of 59)” (Unfair Dismissal 489)
- Date2026/05/28 04:09
- Read 65
This case on the issue of “expectation of renewal (performance evaluation score of 59)” ended with a decision in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application).
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae26 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether an expectation of renewal existed
(1) The rules of employment provided that “when the term of an employment contract expires and the employer intends to rehire, the employer may renew the contract after evaluating the employee’s work attitude and ability during the contract period.”
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission recognized that the fixed-term employee had an expectation of renewal, while the key issue was whether the employer’s refusal to renew the contract based on the performance evaluation results was justified. This is a type of case that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice. It is therefore worth examining how the Commission distinguished between the existence of an expectation of renewal and the presence of reasonable grounds for refusing renewal.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee entered into three consecutive fixed-term employment contracts and worked for approximately one year and six months in total. The rules of employment stipulated that, upon expiration of the contract term, the decision on renewal would be made based on an evaluation of the employee’s work attitude and ability. Relying on the performance evaluation results, the employer decided not to renew the employment contract. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this refusal to renew constituted an unfair refusal to renew, amounting to unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was:
“For a fixed-term employee whose expectation of renewal is recognized based on the rules of employment and repeated contract renewals, does a refusal to renew on the grounds of a substandard performance evaluation score and failure to comply with instructions from a superior constitute unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee had an expectation of renewal, based on the following: the employer had expressly provided in the rules of employment that renewal was possible subject to a performance evaluation, and in fact conducted a performance evaluation of the employee; the parties had entered into three employment contracts, thereby forming a certain practice of renewal; and the employer itself acknowledged the existence of the employee’s expectation of renewal.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the employee had an expectation that the employment contract could be renewed.
Nevertheless, in this case, the employee’s performance evaluation score was 59 points, which fell short of the 70-point threshold required for renewal; in light of the evaluation items and contents, it was difficult to find that the performance evaluation was particularly unreasonable or lacked objectivity; and the employee appeared to have caused substantial disruption to work by failing to faithfully comply with the office head’s instructions, prioritizing his/her own views, and failing to cooperate smoothly with external institutions.
On this basis, the Commission held that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew and determined that the dismissal (refusal to renew) was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if the rules of employment and the employment contract contain provisions on “renewal after performance evaluation” and renewal has in fact been repeated, the expectation of renewal itself is likely to be recognized. However, even where an expectation of renewal is acknowledged, the Labor Relations Commission may recognize reasonable grounds for refusal to renew if objective materials—such as performance evaluation scores or evidence of failure to comply with instructions from superiors—show insufficient job performance, cooperation issues, or similar problems.
Accordingly, to prepare for similar disputes, employees should systematically retain evidence that demonstrates faithful performance of duties, such as records of compliance with work instructions, cooperation with external institutions, emails, reports, and minutes of meetings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it should be assumed that fixed-term employees may be found to have an expectation of renewal. It is therefore important to clearly set out in the rules of employment and HR management guidelines the criteria for renewal (e.g., a score of 70 or above), as well as the evaluation items and procedures. Employers should also document, through objective documents and records, the grounds for refusal to renew—such as performance evaluation results, failure to comply with instructions from superiors, and difficulties in cooperating with external institutions—so that they can prove the existence of reasonable grounds for refusal to renew before the Labor Relations Commission.
In addition, the same criteria should be applied consistently to other fixed-term employees to ensure that the fairness and objectivity of the evaluations are not called into question.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether an expectation of renewal existed
(1) The rules of employment provide that “when the term of an employment contract expires and the employer intends to rehire, the employer may renew the contract after evaluating the employee’s work attitude and ability during the contract period,” and the employer conducted a performance evaluation of the employee accordingly;
(2) The parties entered into three employment contracts, the employee’s total period of service was approximately one year and six months, and the employer also acknowledged that the employee had an expectation of renewal. In light of all these circumstances, the expectation of renewal is recognized.
B. Whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew
(1) The employee’s performance evaluation score was 59 points, which fell short of the 70-point threshold required for renewal, and, considering the evaluation items and contents, there are no circumstances indicating that the performance evaluation was particularly unreasonable or lacked objectivity;
(2) The employee appears to have caused substantial disruption to work by failing to faithfully carry out the office head’s instructions, prioritizing his/her own views, and by failing to cooperate smoothly in the course of coordinating work with external institutions. Taken together, these circumstances support the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether an expectation of renewal existed
(1) The rules of employment provide that “when the term of an employment contract expires and the employer intends to rehire, the employer may renew the contract after evaluating the employee’s work attitude and ability during the contract period,” and the employer conducted a performance evaluation of the employee accordingly;
(2) The parties entered into three employment contracts, the employee’s total period of service was approximately one year and six months, and the employer also acknowledged that the employee had an expectation of renewal. In light of all these circumstances, the expectation of renewal is recognized.
B. Whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew
(1) The employee’s performance evaluation score was 59 points, which fell short of the 70-point threshold required for renewal, and, considering the evaluation items and contents, there are no circumstances indicating that the performance evaluation was particularly unreasonable or lacked objectivity;
(2) The employee appears to have caused substantial disruption to work by failing to faithfully carry out the office head’s instructions, prioritizing his/her own views, and by failing to cooperate smoothly in the course of coordinating work with external institutions. Taken together, these circumstances support the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Implied Submission of Resignation Letter (Extension of Probation)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of renewal (performance evaluation score of 59), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, performance evaluation · poor performance, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work instructions, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Implied Submission of Resignation Letter (Extension of Probation)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of renewal (performance evaluation score of 59) can be viewed in the “Expectation of Renewal (Performance Evaluation Score of 59) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Adjudicating body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2026Buhae26 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.03.19 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether an expectation of renewal existed
(1) The rules of employment provided that “when the term of an employment contract expires and the employer intends to rehire, the employer may renew the contract after evaluating the employee’s work attitude and ability during the contract period.”
1. Legal Implications
In this unfair dismissal case, the Labor Relations Commission recognized that the fixed-term employee had an expectation of renewal, while the key issue was whether the employer’s refusal to renew the contract based on the performance evaluation results was justified. This is a type of case that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice. It is therefore worth examining how the Commission distinguished between the existence of an expectation of renewal and the presence of reasonable grounds for refusing renewal.
Ⅰ. Case Overview
The employee entered into three consecutive fixed-term employment contracts and worked for approximately one year and six months in total. The rules of employment stipulated that, upon expiration of the contract term, the decision on renewal would be made based on an evaluation of the employee’s work attitude and ability. Relying on the performance evaluation results, the employer decided not to renew the employment contract. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this refusal to renew constituted an unfair refusal to renew, amounting to unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case was:
“For a fixed-term employee whose expectation of renewal is recognized based on the rules of employment and repeated contract renewals, does a refusal to renew on the grounds of a substandard performance evaluation score and failure to comply with instructions from a superior constitute unfair dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The panel in this case found that the employee had an expectation of renewal, based on the following: the employer had expressly provided in the rules of employment that renewal was possible subject to a performance evaluation, and in fact conducted a performance evaluation of the employee; the parties had entered into three employment contracts, thereby forming a certain practice of renewal; and the employer itself acknowledged the existence of the employee’s expectation of renewal.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the employee had an expectation that the employment contract could be renewed.
Nevertheless, in this case, the employee’s performance evaluation score was 59 points, which fell short of the 70-point threshold required for renewal; in light of the evaluation items and contents, it was difficult to find that the performance evaluation was particularly unreasonable or lacked objectivity; and the employee appeared to have caused substantial disruption to work by failing to faithfully comply with the office head’s instructions, prioritizing his/her own views, and failing to cooperate smoothly with external institutions.
On this basis, the Commission held that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew and determined that the dismissal (refusal to renew) was not unfair.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if the rules of employment and the employment contract contain provisions on “renewal after performance evaluation” and renewal has in fact been repeated, the expectation of renewal itself is likely to be recognized. However, even where an expectation of renewal is acknowledged, the Labor Relations Commission may recognize reasonable grounds for refusal to renew if objective materials—such as performance evaluation scores or evidence of failure to comply with instructions from superiors—show insufficient job performance, cooperation issues, or similar problems.
Accordingly, to prepare for similar disputes, employees should systematically retain evidence that demonstrates faithful performance of duties, such as records of compliance with work instructions, cooperation with external institutions, emails, reports, and minutes of meetings.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it should be assumed that fixed-term employees may be found to have an expectation of renewal. It is therefore important to clearly set out in the rules of employment and HR management guidelines the criteria for renewal (e.g., a score of 70 or above), as well as the evaluation items and procedures. Employers should also document, through objective documents and records, the grounds for refusal to renew—such as performance evaluation results, failure to comply with instructions from superiors, and difficulties in cooperating with external institutions—so that they can prove the existence of reasonable grounds for refusal to renew before the Labor Relations Commission.
In addition, the same criteria should be applied consistently to other fixed-term employees to ensure that the fairness and objectivity of the evaluations are not called into question.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether an expectation of renewal existed
(1) The rules of employment provide that “when the term of an employment contract expires and the employer intends to rehire, the employer may renew the contract after evaluating the employee’s work attitude and ability during the contract period,” and the employer conducted a performance evaluation of the employee accordingly;
(2) The parties entered into three employment contracts, the employee’s total period of service was approximately one year and six months, and the employer also acknowledged that the employee had an expectation of renewal. In light of all these circumstances, the expectation of renewal is recognized.
B. Whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew
(1) The employee’s performance evaluation score was 59 points, which fell short of the 70-point threshold required for renewal, and, considering the evaluation items and contents, there are no circumstances indicating that the performance evaluation was particularly unreasonable or lacked objectivity;
(2) The employee appears to have caused substantial disruption to work by failing to faithfully carry out the office head’s instructions, prioritizing his/her own views, and by failing to cooperate smoothly in the course of coordinating work with external institutions. Taken together, these circumstances support the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether an expectation of renewal existed
(1) The rules of employment provide that “when the term of an employment contract expires and the employer intends to rehire, the employer may renew the contract after evaluating the employee’s work attitude and ability during the contract period,” and the employer conducted a performance evaluation of the employee accordingly;
(2) The parties entered into three employment contracts, the employee’s total period of service was approximately one year and six months, and the employer also acknowledged that the employee had an expectation of renewal. In light of all these circumstances, the expectation of renewal is recognized.
B. Whether there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew
(1) The employee’s performance evaluation score was 59 points, which fell short of the 70-point threshold required for renewal, and, considering the evaluation items and contents, there are no circumstances indicating that the performance evaluation was particularly unreasonable or lacked objectivity;
(2) The employee appears to have caused substantial disruption to work by failing to faithfully carry out the office head’s instructions, prioritizing his/her own views, and by failing to cooperate smoothly in the course of coordinating work with external institutions. Taken together, these circumstances support the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds for the refusal to renew. /
[More Related Decisions]
- “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Implied Submission of Resignation Letter (Extension of Probation)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision
- “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, expectation of renewal (performance evaluation score of 59), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, performance evaluation · poor performance, violation of company policy · failure to comply with work instructions, 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.
※ The previous article, “‘Implied Submission of Resignation Letter (Extension of Probation)’ – Unfair Dismissal Decision,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to expectation of renewal (performance evaluation score of 59) can be viewed in the “Expectation of Renewal (Performance Evaluation Score of 59) Related Decisions List.”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
