Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Disabled Intern Athlete)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 561)
- Date2026/07/22 04:05
- Read 10
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “legitimate expectation of renewal (disabled intern athlete).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae343 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-26 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: … It is reasonable to view that the employment contract ended on 22 January 2026, and in light of the circumstances that the employee received severance pay for the contract period and the entries regarding training location and confirmer in the training log, there are no circumstances sufficient to deem that the employment contract was implicitly renewed. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee as of 9 February 2026 does not exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had entered into and worked under a fixed-term employment contract as a disabled intern (athlete) filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that it was possible to continue working even after the expiration of the employment contract and that the measures taken as of 9 February 2026 constituted unfair dismissal.
The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employment contract had ended as of 22 January 2026, and whether, after that date, there existed a dismissal constituting an implicit renewal or an infringement of a legitimate expectation of renewal. Ultimately, the Commission found in favor of the employer and dismissed the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, after the expiration of the fixed-term employment contract for a disabled intern (athlete), an implicit renewal of the employment contract or a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract can be recognized based on: (i) the phrase “re-contracting possible depending on evaluation, etc.” in the recruitment notice, or (ii) documents explaining the conditions for re-contracting; and further, whether the measures taken as of 9 February 2026 can be regarded as unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the contract period specified in the employment contract clearly ran until 22 January 2026; that there were circumstances showing that the employee received severance pay for that period; and that, judging from the entries in the training log regarding training location and confirmer, there was a lack of circumstances sufficient to deem that the same employment contract had been implicitly renewed after that date.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal alleged by the employee as of 9 February 2026 did not exist, and that it was difficult to find that a legitimate expectation that re-contracting would automatically occur upon satisfaction of certain conditions had been formed solely on the basis of the phrase “re-contracting possible depending on evaluation, etc.” in the recruitment notice or the employer’s official document titled “Guidance on Conditions for Re-contracting Disabled Intern (Athlete) and Request for Evaluation.”
Furthermore, applying the general principles established in case law, the panel reasoned that where specific conditions and procedures for renewal are not set out in the employment contract or internal rules, and where no practice of repeated renewals or guaranteeing long-term service is established, a legitimate expectation of renewal is not easily recognized based merely on expressions such as “re-contracting possible” or “extension possible depending on performance.” On this basis, the panel held that the “dismissal disposition” in this case did not exist and that unfair dismissal was not established.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Fixed-term and intern employees should be aware that even if the recruitment announcement contains phrases such as “re-contracting possible” or “extension possible depending on performance,” a legitimate expectation of renewal will not readily be recognized if there are no specific renewal criteria and procedures in the employment contract or internal rules, and if no practice of repeated renewals has been built up in reality.
If you wish to continue working after the expiration of the contract, it is important to secure in advance materials that support a legitimate expectation of renewal, such as objective evaluation criteria, precedents of past renewals, and evidence of the need for regular and continuous work.
In addition, if you receive severance pay or settlement amounts on the premise of “contract termination” at the time the contract period ends, it may become very difficult to later assert dismissal. If you disagree with the legal nature of the termination, you should clearly express your objection at the time of receipt, or consult in advance with an expert such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating fixed-term personnel such as disabled interns or athlete interns, it is necessary to clearly specify the contract period and end date in the recruitment notice, employment contract, and internal rules, and to draft the wording in such a way that even if abstract expressions such as “re-contracting possible” are used, they are not misunderstood as guaranteeing automatic renewal or conversion to regular employment.
Furthermore, when conducting evaluations for re-contracting, it is helpful for preventing disputes to clearly state in rules and documents that the evaluation results do not directly translate into an obligation to re-contract, but serve merely as reference materials for determining whether to re-contract.
At the time of contract expiration, the employer should provide written notice of the termination of the employment contract and handle procedures such as payment of severance pay and reporting of loss of coverage under the four major social insurances consistently with the reason for termination, in order to reduce the room for claims of “implicit renewal.” For systematic management of HR and labor risks related to collective redundancies and contract expirations from the initial design stage, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… It is reasonable to view that the employment contract ended on 22 January 2026, and in light of the circumstances that the employee received severance pay for the contract period and the entries regarding training location and confirmer in the training log, there are no circumstances sufficient to deem that the employment contract was implicitly renewed. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee as of 9 February 2026 does not exist.
b. Whether a Legitimate Expectation of Renewal of the Employment Contract Exists
① The phrase “re-contracting possible depending on evaluation, etc.” stated in the recruitment notice;
② The conditions for re-contracting evaluation stated in the document titled “Guidance on Conditions for Re-contracting Disabled Intern (Athlete) and Request for Evaluation” that the employer sent to the Jeonnam Sports Council on 8 January 2026;
③ …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… It is reasonable to view that the employment contract ended on 22 January 2026, and in light of the circumstances that the employee received severance pay for the contract period and the entries regarding training location and confirmer in the training log, there are no circumstances sufficient to deem that the employment contract was implicitly renewed. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee as of 9 February 2026 does not exist.
b. Whether a Legitimate Expectation of Renewal of the Employment Contract Exists
① The phrase “re-contracting possible depending on evaluation, etc.” stated in the recruitment notice;
② The conditions for re-contracting evaluation stated in the document titled “Guidance on Conditions for Re-contracting Disabled Intern (Athlete) and Request for Evaluation” that the employer sent to the Jeonnam Sports Council on 8 January 2026;
③ … /
[Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Form Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimate expectation of renewal (disabled intern athlete), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Acceptance of Letter of Resignation (Voluntary Resignation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimate expectation of renewal (disabled intern athlete) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Disabled Intern Athlete).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “legitimate expectation of renewal (disabled intern athlete).”
Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae343 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-26 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: … It is reasonable to view that the employment contract ended on 22 January 2026, and in light of the circumstances that the employee received severance pay for the contract period and the entries regarding training location and confirmer in the training log, there are no circumstances sufficient to deem that the employment contract was implicitly renewed. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee as of 9 February 2026 does not exist.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had entered into and worked under a fixed-term employment contract as a disabled intern (athlete) filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, claiming that it was possible to continue working even after the expiration of the employment contract and that the measures taken as of 9 February 2026 constituted unfair dismissal.
The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the employment contract had ended as of 22 January 2026, and whether, after that date, there existed a dismissal constituting an implicit renewal or an infringement of a legitimate expectation of renewal. Ultimately, the Commission found in favor of the employer and dismissed the employee’s claim of unfair dismissal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, after the expiration of the fixed-term employment contract for a disabled intern (athlete), an implicit renewal of the employment contract or a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract can be recognized based on: (i) the phrase “re-contracting possible depending on evaluation, etc.” in the recruitment notice, or (ii) documents explaining the conditions for re-contracting; and further, whether the measures taken as of 9 February 2026 can be regarded as unfair dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case noted that the contract period specified in the employment contract clearly ran until 22 January 2026; that there were circumstances showing that the employee received severance pay for that period; and that, judging from the entries in the training log regarding training location and confirmer, there was a lack of circumstances sufficient to deem that the same employment contract had been implicitly renewed after that date.
Accordingly, the panel held that the dismissal alleged by the employee as of 9 February 2026 did not exist, and that it was difficult to find that a legitimate expectation that re-contracting would automatically occur upon satisfaction of certain conditions had been formed solely on the basis of the phrase “re-contracting possible depending on evaluation, etc.” in the recruitment notice or the employer’s official document titled “Guidance on Conditions for Re-contracting Disabled Intern (Athlete) and Request for Evaluation.”
Furthermore, applying the general principles established in case law, the panel reasoned that where specific conditions and procedures for renewal are not set out in the employment contract or internal rules, and where no practice of repeated renewals or guaranteeing long-term service is established, a legitimate expectation of renewal is not easily recognized based merely on expressions such as “re-contracting possible” or “extension possible depending on performance.” On this basis, the panel held that the “dismissal disposition” in this case did not exist and that unfair dismissal was not established.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Fixed-term and intern employees should be aware that even if the recruitment announcement contains phrases such as “re-contracting possible” or “extension possible depending on performance,” a legitimate expectation of renewal will not readily be recognized if there are no specific renewal criteria and procedures in the employment contract or internal rules, and if no practice of repeated renewals has been built up in reality.
If you wish to continue working after the expiration of the contract, it is important to secure in advance materials that support a legitimate expectation of renewal, such as objective evaluation criteria, precedents of past renewals, and evidence of the need for regular and continuous work.
In addition, if you receive severance pay or settlement amounts on the premise of “contract termination” at the time the contract period ends, it may become very difficult to later assert dismissal. If you disagree with the legal nature of the termination, you should clearly express your objection at the time of receipt, or consult in advance with an expert such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating fixed-term personnel such as disabled interns or athlete interns, it is necessary to clearly specify the contract period and end date in the recruitment notice, employment contract, and internal rules, and to draft the wording in such a way that even if abstract expressions such as “re-contracting possible” are used, they are not misunderstood as guaranteeing automatic renewal or conversion to regular employment.
Furthermore, when conducting evaluations for re-contracting, it is helpful for preventing disputes to clearly state in rules and documents that the evaluation results do not directly translate into an obligation to re-contract, but serve merely as reference materials for determining whether to re-contract.
At the time of contract expiration, the employer should provide written notice of the termination of the employment contract and handle procedures such as payment of severance pay and reporting of loss of coverage under the four major social insurances consistently with the reason for termination, in order to reduce the room for claims of “implicit renewal.” For systematic management of HR and labor risks related to collective redundancies and contract expirations from the initial design stage, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
… It is reasonable to view that the employment contract ended on 22 January 2026, and in light of the circumstances that the employee received severance pay for the contract period and the entries regarding training location and confirmer in the training log, there are no circumstances sufficient to deem that the employment contract was implicitly renewed. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee as of 9 February 2026 does not exist.
b. Whether a Legitimate Expectation of Renewal of the Employment Contract Exists
① The phrase “re-contracting possible depending on evaluation, etc.” stated in the recruitment notice;
② The conditions for re-contracting evaluation stated in the document titled “Guidance on Conditions for Re-contracting Disabled Intern (Athlete) and Request for Evaluation” that the employer sent to the Jeonnam Sports Council on 8 January 2026;
③ …
3. Summary of the Decision
a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
… It is reasonable to view that the employment contract ended on 22 January 2026, and in light of the circumstances that the employee received severance pay for the contract period and the entries regarding training location and confirmer in the training log, there are no circumstances sufficient to deem that the employment contract was implicitly renewed. Accordingly, the dismissal alleged by the employee as of 9 February 2026 does not exist.
b. Whether a Legitimate Expectation of Renewal of the Employment Contract Exists
① The phrase “re-contracting possible depending on evaluation, etc.” stated in the recruitment notice;
② The conditions for re-contracting evaluation stated in the document titled “Guidance on Conditions for Re-contracting Disabled Intern (Athlete) and Request for Evaluation” that the employer sent to the Jeonnam Sports Council on 8 January 2026;
③ … /
[Related Decisions]
- “‘Failure to Form Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Initial Decision Upheld
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark over Telephone)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Dismissal of Application (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Decision date: – Case number: Dismissed
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, legitimate expectation of renewal (disabled intern athlete), 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Acceptance of Letter of Resignation (Voluntary Resignation)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to legitimate expectation of renewal (disabled intern athlete) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Disabled Intern Athlete).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
