Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Extinction of Relief Interest (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions (Unfair Dismissal 588)
- Date2026/08/01 04:04
- Read 16
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (dismissal of the application) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2026BuHae924 – ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-21 · Result: Application dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employment contract specified the employment period as 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case is an application for remedy filed by a fixed-term employee before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused on whether any legal interest in obtaining a remedy remained where the application was filed after the expiration of the employment contract period. The employment contract stipulated the employment period as from 2 October 2025 to 1 January 2026 and expressly stated that “the date on which the employment contract period expires shall be the date of termination of the employment relationship.” The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal on 15 February 2026.
The employee sought relief from the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the case in substance constituted an unfair dismissal or unfair redundancy (collective dismissal). However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the matter focusing on the expiration of the contract period and the existence of any relief interest, and dismissed the application. In this process, Labor Law Firm Law& organized and addressed the issues relating to the termination of a fixed-term employment contract and the legal doctrine on relief interest.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “a legal interest in obtaining a remedy remains for an employee to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission even after the fixed-term employment contract expressly stipulated in the employment contract has already expired and the employment relationship has ended.”
Furthermore, despite the existence of a clearly defined term in the employment contract, the question arose whether that term could be regarded as merely formal so that, in substance, the contract could be viewed as one without a fixed term or as one in which a legitimate expectation of renewal exists, thereby allowing the application of the legal principles restricting dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employment contract clearly specified the period from 2 October 2025 to 1 January 2026, that it provided that “the date on which the employment contract period expires shall be the date of termination of the employment relationship,” that no evidence was submitted to establish any special circumstances, and that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed on 15 February 2026, after the expiration of the contract period.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer must be deemed to have automatically terminated upon expiration of the term on 1 January 2026, and that, after that date, restoration of the employee’s status or reinstatement to the original position was impossible. Accordingly, it determined that there was no remaining relief interest to be adjudicated in the Labor Relations Commission procedure.
The panel held that the “dismissal” in this case must be regarded merely as an automatic termination due to the expiration of the employment contract period and that there remained no employee status capable of being restored through the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy procedure. Therefore, it dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on the ground that no relief interest existed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee works under a fixed-term contract, it is essential first to confirm accurately the contract period specified in the employment contract and the meaning of any clause stating that “the employment relationship terminates upon expiration of the contract period.” If an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is filed with the Labor Relations Commission a considerable time after the expiration of the employment contract period, there is a very high risk that, even if the employee is dissatisfied with the employer’s actions, the application will be rejected or dismissed on the ground of lack of relief interest.
However, if a short-term contract has been repeatedly renewed over a long period, or if, in light of practice, work rules, or collective agreements, the employee is in substance one without a fixed term or there is room to recognize a legitimate expectation of renewal, the employee should promptly consult a specialist as to whether the notice of expiration constitutes a dismissal or an unfair refusal to renew. If only issues such as wages or severance pay remain, the employee should utilize other procedures, such as civil litigation or a complaint for unpaid wages, rather than the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when entering into an employment contract with a fixed-term employee, it is important to clearly specify in the employment contract the contract period, the termination date, and whether and on what basis the contract may be renewed, and to ensure that actual practice is consistently operated in accordance with that wording. If the employer intends to terminate the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract period, it must be made clear in documents and in actual operation that the termination is an “automatic termination due to expiration of the term,” not a “dismissal,” and care must be taken in advance to prevent the formation of a practice of long-term repeated renewals or automatic extensions.
In addition, if an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal after the expiration of the contract period, the employer needs a strategy to logically substantiate, based on the employment contract and actual personnel management, the point in time when the employment relationship ended and the non-existence of any relief interest. Separately, since monetary claims such as wages, severance pay, and overtime pay can be disputed through other procedures, the employer should clearly settle such amounts at the time of contract termination and retain the relevant documentation.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employment contract specified the employment period as from 2 October 2025 to 1 January 2026 and provided that “the date on which the employment contract period expires shall be the date of termination of the employment relationship.” Accordingly, the employment contract period must be deemed to have expired on 1 January 2026, and since the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 February 2026, there is no relief interest.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employment contract specified the employment period as from 2 October 2025 to 1 January 2026 and provided that “the date on which the employment contract period expires shall be the date of termination of the employment relationship.” Accordingly, the employment contract period must be deemed to have expired on 1 January 2026, and since the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 February 2026, there is no relief interest.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract), 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&.
※ The previous article, “‘Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Director’s Remarks · Lack of Practice)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Relief Interest (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (dismissal of the application) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract).”
Decision body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission
Case No. 2026BuHae924 – ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026-05-21 · Result: Application dismissed
Summary of key issue: The employment contract specified the employment period as 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This unfair dismissal case is an application for remedy filed by a fixed-term employee before the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused on whether any legal interest in obtaining a remedy remained where the application was filed after the expiration of the employment contract period. The employment contract stipulated the employment period as from 2 October 2025 to 1 January 2026 and expressly stated that “the date on which the employment contract period expires shall be the date of termination of the employment relationship.” The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal on 15 February 2026.
The employee sought relief from the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the case in substance constituted an unfair dismissal or unfair redundancy (collective dismissal). However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission examined the matter focusing on the expiration of the contract period and the existence of any relief interest, and dismissed the application. In this process, Labor Law Firm Law& organized and addressed the issues relating to the termination of a fixed-term employment contract and the legal doctrine on relief interest.
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is whether “a legal interest in obtaining a remedy remains for an employee to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission even after the fixed-term employment contract expressly stipulated in the employment contract has already expired and the employment relationship has ended.”
Furthermore, despite the existence of a clearly defined term in the employment contract, the question arose whether that term could be regarded as merely formal so that, in substance, the contract could be viewed as one without a fixed term or as one in which a legitimate expectation of renewal exists, thereby allowing the application of the legal principles restricting dismissal.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case noted that the employment contract clearly specified the period from 2 October 2025 to 1 January 2026, that it provided that “the date on which the employment contract period expires shall be the date of termination of the employment relationship,” that no evidence was submitted to establish any special circumstances, and that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal was filed on 15 February 2026, after the expiration of the contract period.
In light of these circumstances, the panel held that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer must be deemed to have automatically terminated upon expiration of the term on 1 January 2026, and that, after that date, restoration of the employee’s status or reinstatement to the original position was impossible. Accordingly, it determined that there was no remaining relief interest to be adjudicated in the Labor Relations Commission procedure.
The panel held that the “dismissal” in this case must be regarded merely as an automatic termination due to the expiration of the employment contract period and that there remained no employee status capable of being restored through the Labor Relations Commission’s remedy procedure. Therefore, it dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on the ground that no relief interest existed.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Where an employee works under a fixed-term contract, it is essential first to confirm accurately the contract period specified in the employment contract and the meaning of any clause stating that “the employment relationship terminates upon expiration of the contract period.” If an application for remedy for unfair dismissal is filed with the Labor Relations Commission a considerable time after the expiration of the employment contract period, there is a very high risk that, even if the employee is dissatisfied with the employer’s actions, the application will be rejected or dismissed on the ground of lack of relief interest.
However, if a short-term contract has been repeatedly renewed over a long period, or if, in light of practice, work rules, or collective agreements, the employee is in substance one without a fixed term or there is room to recognize a legitimate expectation of renewal, the employee should promptly consult a specialist as to whether the notice of expiration constitutes a dismissal or an unfair refusal to renew. If only issues such as wages or severance pay remain, the employee should utilize other procedures, such as civil litigation or a complaint for unpaid wages, rather than the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, when entering into an employment contract with a fixed-term employee, it is important to clearly specify in the employment contract the contract period, the termination date, and whether and on what basis the contract may be renewed, and to ensure that actual practice is consistently operated in accordance with that wording. If the employer intends to terminate the employment relationship on the ground of expiration of the contract period, it must be made clear in documents and in actual operation that the termination is an “automatic termination due to expiration of the term,” not a “dismissal,” and care must be taken in advance to prevent the formation of a practice of long-term repeated renewals or automatic extensions.
In addition, if an employee files an application for remedy for unfair dismissal after the expiration of the contract period, the employer needs a strategy to logically substantiate, based on the employment contract and actual personnel management, the point in time when the employment relationship ended and the non-existence of any relief interest. Separately, since monetary claims such as wages, severance pay, and overtime pay can be disputed through other procedures, the employer should clearly settle such amounts at the time of contract termination and retain the relevant documentation.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
The employment contract specified the employment period as from 2 October 2025 to 1 January 2026 and provided that “the date on which the employment contract period expires shall be the date of termination of the employment relationship.” Accordingly, the employment contract period must be deemed to have expired on 1 January 2026, and since the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 February 2026, there is no relief interest.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The employment contract specified the employment period as from 2 October 2025 to 1 January 2026 and provided that “the date on which the employment contract period expires shall be the date of termination of the employment relationship.” Accordingly, the employment contract period must be deemed to have expired on 1 January 2026, and since the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 February 2026, there is no relief interest.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions”
- “‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions” – Decision date: – Case result: Dismissed
- “‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract), 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&.
※ The previous article, “‘Non-Existence of Legitimate Expectation of Renewal (Director’s Remarks · Lack of Practice)’ in Unfair Dismissal Decisions,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Relief Interest (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
