Corporate trends / Performance record
Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Director’s Remarks · Lack of Practice) in Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 587)
- Date2026/07/30 04:17
- Read 21
This case concerns a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of a legitimate expectation of renewal (director’s remarks · lack of practice).”
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae154 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-21 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: In light of the facts that a fixed-term employment contract was concluded, that neither the employment contract nor the operating regulations specified any obligation, requirements, or procedures regarding renewal of the employment contract, that it was difficult to regard the director’s remarks as intended to guarantee a legitimate expectation of renewal, and that it was difficult to find that a practice of renewing employment contracts had been established, the employee could not be found to have a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had entered into a fixed-term employment contract filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after no renewal was made upon expiry of the contract term. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the contents of the employment contract, the operating regulations, the director’s remarks, and whether a practice of renewal existed, and rendered its decision focusing on whether the employee had acquired a legitimate expectation of renewal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a fixed-term employment contract has been concluded, there are no express provisions in the employment contract or operating regulations regarding the obligation, requirements, or procedures for renewal, and there exist only certain remarks by the director and a limited number of renewal cases, the employee can nevertheless be found to have a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that a fixed-term employment contract had been expressly concluded, that nowhere in the employment contract or operating regulations were there provisions establishing an obligation to renew or specifying the requirements and procedures for renewal to the effect that “if certain conditions are met, renewal is mandatory,” that it was difficult, from an objective standpoint, to regard the director’s remarks as a promise guaranteeing renewal, and that it was difficult to find that a uniform and mechanical practice of repeatedly renewing employment contracts had been established.
Accordingly, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract had been formed on the part of the employee.
Therefore, the termination in this case had to be regarded as a termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the contract term, and the refusal to renew could not be deemed an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For a fixed-term employee to assert unfair dismissal, a mere subjective expectation of “hoping for renewal” is not sufficient. It is necessary to prove that an objective relationship of trust has been formed, for example, by showing that the employment contract, rules of employment, operating regulations, or recruitment announcements contain provisions on an obligation to renew or concrete requirements and procedures for renewal, or by showing long-term repeated renewals or uniform renewals of employees performing the same type of work.
Vague oral remarks by the director or managers must, when combined with their content, context, and the actual operational practice, be objectively interpretable as intended to guarantee renewal. Therefore, it is advisable, where possible, to preserve such remarks in evidentiary form, such as in writing, messenger messages, or emails.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when entering into a fixed-term employment contract, the contract period and end date should be clearly specified, and the wording should distinguish between renewal being merely “possible” and renewal being “mandatory.” In particular, if no requirements or procedures for renewal are to be established, expressions in recruitment announcements, internal regulations, or managers’ remarks that could be misunderstood as implying automatic renewal upon satisfaction of certain conditions should be avoided. In actual operation as well, even if there are some cases of renewal, it is important to organize personnel records and reasons for decisions so that such cases do not solidify into a uniform and mechanical practice.
This decision of the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission once again confirms that, in determining whether a dismissal is unfair, the prior issue is whether a “legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract” is recognized, and, as Labor Law Firm Law& frequently emphasizes in practice, that disputes can be reduced if the wording of the contract, the operating regulations, and the actual renewal practices are consistently aligned.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the facts that a fixed-term employment contract was concluded, that neither the employment contract nor the operating regulations specified any obligation, requirements, or procedures regarding renewal of the employment contract, that it was difficult to regard the director’s remarks as intended to guarantee a legitimate expectation of renewal, and that it was difficult to find that a practice of renewing employment contracts had been established, the employee could not be found to have a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
In light of the facts that a fixed-term employment contract was concluded, that neither the employment contract nor the operating regulations specified any obligation, requirements, or procedures regarding renewal of the employment contract, that it was difficult to regard the director’s remarks as intended to guarantee a legitimate expectation of renewal, and that it was difficult to find that a practice of renewing employment contracts had been established, the employee could not be found to have a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Refusal of Employment Succession (Termination of Private Consignment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (director’s remarks · lack of practice), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Non-Existence of Employee Status (Academy Vehicle Owner-Driver)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (director’s remarks · lack of practice) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Director’s Remarks · Lack of Practice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
Adjudicating body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae154 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-21 · Case result: Dismissed
Summary of key issue: In light of the facts that a fixed-term employment contract was concluded, that neither the employment contract nor the operating regulations specified any obligation, requirements, or procedures regarding renewal of the employment contract, that it was difficult to regard the director’s remarks as intended to guarantee a legitimate expectation of renewal, and that it was difficult to find that a practice of renewing employment contracts had been established, the employee could not be found to have a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had entered into a fixed-term employment contract filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after no renewal was made upon expiry of the contract term. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the contents of the employment contract, the operating regulations, the director’s remarks, and whether a practice of renewal existed, and rendered its decision focusing on whether the employee had acquired a legitimate expectation of renewal.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a fixed-term employment contract has been concluded, there are no express provisions in the employment contract or operating regulations regarding the obligation, requirements, or procedures for renewal, and there exist only certain remarks by the director and a limited number of renewal cases, the employee can nevertheless be found to have a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that a fixed-term employment contract had been expressly concluded, that nowhere in the employment contract or operating regulations were there provisions establishing an obligation to renew or specifying the requirements and procedures for renewal to the effect that “if certain conditions are met, renewal is mandatory,” that it was difficult, from an objective standpoint, to regard the director’s remarks as a promise guaranteeing renewal, and that it was difficult to find that a uniform and mechanical practice of repeatedly renewing employment contracts had been established.
Accordingly, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract had been formed on the part of the employee.
Therefore, the termination in this case had to be regarded as a termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the contract term, and the refusal to renew could not be deemed an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
For a fixed-term employee to assert unfair dismissal, a mere subjective expectation of “hoping for renewal” is not sufficient. It is necessary to prove that an objective relationship of trust has been formed, for example, by showing that the employment contract, rules of employment, operating regulations, or recruitment announcements contain provisions on an obligation to renew or concrete requirements and procedures for renewal, or by showing long-term repeated renewals or uniform renewals of employees performing the same type of work.
Vague oral remarks by the director or managers must, when combined with their content, context, and the actual operational practice, be objectively interpretable as intended to guarantee renewal. Therefore, it is advisable, where possible, to preserve such remarks in evidentiary form, such as in writing, messenger messages, or emails.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer (Company) Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when entering into a fixed-term employment contract, the contract period and end date should be clearly specified, and the wording should distinguish between renewal being merely “possible” and renewal being “mandatory.” In particular, if no requirements or procedures for renewal are to be established, expressions in recruitment announcements, internal regulations, or managers’ remarks that could be misunderstood as implying automatic renewal upon satisfaction of certain conditions should be avoided. In actual operation as well, even if there are some cases of renewal, it is important to organize personnel records and reasons for decisions so that such cases do not solidify into a uniform and mechanical practice.
This decision of the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission once again confirms that, in determining whether a dismissal is unfair, the prior issue is whether a “legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract” is recognized, and, as Labor Law Firm Law& frequently emphasizes in practice, that disputes can be reduced if the wording of the contract, the operating regulations, and the actual renewal practices are consistently aligned.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
In light of the facts that a fixed-term employment contract was concluded, that neither the employment contract nor the operating regulations specified any obligation, requirements, or procedures regarding renewal of the employment contract, that it was difficult to regard the director’s remarks as intended to guarantee a legitimate expectation of renewal, and that it was difficult to find that a practice of renewing employment contracts had been established, the employee could not be found to have a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
In light of the facts that a fixed-term employment contract was concluded, that neither the employment contract nor the operating regulations specified any obligation, requirements, or procedures regarding renewal of the employment contract, that it was difficult to regard the director’s remarks as intended to guarantee a legitimate expectation of renewal, and that it was difficult to find that a practice of renewing employment contracts had been established, the employee could not be found to have a legitimate expectation of renewal of the employment contract. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Refusal of Employment Succession (Termination of Private Consignment)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
- “‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision” – Date of decision: – Case number: First-instance decision upheld
- “‘Non-Satisfaction of Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (director’s remarks · lack of practice), 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “‘Non-Existence of Employee Status (Academy Vehicle Owner-Driver)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to non-existence of legitimate expectation of renewal (director’s remarks · lack of practice) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Director’s Remarks · Lack of Practice).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
