Corporate trends / Performance record
Case on Unfair Dismissal Relating to “Extinction of Relief Interest (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract)” (Unfair Dismissal 590)
- Date2026/08/03 04:05
- Read 11
[Case Information]
This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae924 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-21 · Case result: Dismissed
Key Issue Summary: The employment contract specified the employment period as 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, a fixed-term employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission after the expiration of the employment contract. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that there was no remaining relief interest.
The employment contract specified 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 the application for remedy for unfair dismissal thereafter, on 15 February 2026.
The issue in this case was whether “relief interest before the Labor Relations Commission exists in relation to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed after the expiration of a fixed-term employment contract expressly stipulated in the employment contract.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were, first, whether it could be deemed that the employment relationship naturally terminated as of 1 January 2026, the date specified in the employment contract. Second, even if there were room for dispute regarding the employer’s actions, whether any relief interest remained before the Labor Relations Commission in respect of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed on 15 February 2026, after the expiration of the employment contract period—in other words, whether there was any substantive need to continue the proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employment contract clearly stipulated the employment period as from 2 October 2025 to 1 January 2026, that there was a clause stating that “the date on which the employment contract period expires shall be the date of termination of the employment relationship,” and that there were no special circumstances confirming that the fixed term was merely formal or that a legitimate expectation of renewal existed. In light of these factors, the panel held that the employment contract must be deemed to have naturally terminated as of 1 January 2026.
Even if there were room for dispute regarding the dismissal in this case, the panel held that, since the employment relationship had already terminated as of 1 January 2026, reinstatement of the employee to his or her position was impossible, and any monetary interests relating to wages or severance pay for the dismissal period could be resolved through civil litigation. Accordingly, the panel determined that there was no relief interest to be granted by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the perspective of a fixed-term employee, it is essential to understand precisely the contract period specified in the employment contract and the meaning of any clause stating that “expiration of the contract period = termination of the employment relationship.” Where the employment relationship has been terminated due to expiration of the contract period, the remedy procedure for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, which presupposes reinstatement to the original position, may be denied on the ground of lack of relief interest. Therefore, if you wish to challenge the illegality of a redundancy dismissal or refusal to renew, you should file an application for remedy promptly, before the expiration of the contract period or at least while the employment relationship is still in existence.
In addition, you should carefully review with a labor law specialist whether there is any basis for arguing that the fixed term is merely formal or that a legitimate expectation of renewal exists, for example, due to repeated renewals, established renewal practices, or provisions on renewal in work rules or collective agreements.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly state in the employment contract with a fixed-term employee the contract period, termination date, and whether renewal is possible, and to manage actual operations in a manner consistent with that wording. If there are repeated renewals, a practice of automatic extension, or de facto treatment identical to that of regular employees, the employee may be regarded as one “without a fixed term,” or a legitimate expectation of renewal may be recognized, which can lead to disputes over redundancy dismissal or unfair dismissal. Accordingly, employers should stipulate renewal criteria and procedures in advance and operate consistently in accordance with them.
Furthermore, when terminating the employment relationship due to expiration of the contract period, it is advisable to clearly inform the employee of the timing and reason for termination and to document that the termination is due to “expiration of the contract period,” which is distinct from dismissal. Doing so will help prevent future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Since 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,” the employment contract period must be deemed to have expired on 1 January 2026. As the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 February 2026, there was no relief interest.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Since 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,” the employment contract period must be deemed to have expired on 1 January 2026. As the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 February 2026, there was no relief interest.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Extinction of Relief Interest (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating 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 (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae924 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-21 · Case result: Dismissed
Key Issue Summary: The employment contract specified the employment period as 2025.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this unfair dismissal case, a fixed-term employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission after the expiration of the employment contract. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that there was no remaining relief interest.
The employment contract specified 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 the application for remedy for unfair dismissal thereafter, on 15 February 2026.
The issue in this case was whether “relief interest before the Labor Relations Commission exists in relation to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed after the expiration of a fixed-term employment contract expressly stipulated in the employment contract.”
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issues in this case were, first, whether it could be deemed that the employment relationship naturally terminated as of 1 January 2026, the date specified in the employment contract. Second, even if there were room for dispute regarding the employer’s actions, whether any relief interest remained before the Labor Relations Commission in respect of an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed on 15 February 2026, after the expiration of the employment contract period—in other words, whether there was any substantive need to continue the proceedings before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The panel in this case found that the employment contract clearly stipulated the employment period as from 2 October 2025 to 1 January 2026, that there was a clause stating that “the date on which the employment contract period expires shall be the date of termination of the employment relationship,” and that there were no special circumstances confirming that the fixed term was merely formal or that a legitimate expectation of renewal existed. In light of these factors, the panel held that the employment contract must be deemed to have naturally terminated as of 1 January 2026.
Even if there were room for dispute regarding the dismissal in this case, the panel held that, since the employment relationship had already terminated as of 1 January 2026, reinstatement of the employee to his or her position was impossible, and any monetary interests relating to wages or severance pay for the dismissal period could be resolved through civil litigation. Accordingly, the panel determined that there was no relief interest to be granted by the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the perspective of a fixed-term employee, it is essential to understand precisely the contract period specified in the employment contract and the meaning of any clause stating that “expiration of the contract period = termination of the employment relationship.” Where the employment relationship has been terminated due to expiration of the contract period, the remedy procedure for unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission, which presupposes reinstatement to the original position, may be denied on the ground of lack of relief interest. Therefore, if you wish to challenge the illegality of a redundancy dismissal or refusal to renew, you should file an application for remedy promptly, before the expiration of the contract period or at least while the employment relationship is still in existence.
In addition, you should carefully review with a labor law specialist whether there is any basis for arguing that the fixed term is merely formal or that a legitimate expectation of renewal exists, for example, due to repeated renewals, established renewal practices, or provisions on renewal in work rules or collective agreements.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly state in the employment contract with a fixed-term employee the contract period, termination date, and whether renewal is possible, and to manage actual operations in a manner consistent with that wording. If there are repeated renewals, a practice of automatic extension, or de facto treatment identical to that of regular employees, the employee may be regarded as one “without a fixed term,” or a legitimate expectation of renewal may be recognized, which can lead to disputes over redundancy dismissal or unfair dismissal. Accordingly, employers should stipulate renewal criteria and procedures in advance and operate consistently in accordance with them.
Furthermore, when terminating the employment relationship due to expiration of the contract period, it is advisable to clearly inform the employee of the timing and reason for termination and to document that the termination is due to “expiration of the contract period,” which is distinct from dismissal. Doing so will help prevent future disputes before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts.
2. Matters Decided
a. Case Overview and Procedural History
Since 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,” the employment contract period must be deemed to have expired on 1 January 2026. As the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 February 2026, there was no relief interest.
3. Gist of the Decision
a. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
Since 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,” the employment contract period must be deemed to have expired on 1 January 2026. As the employee filed the application for remedy on 15 February 2026, there was no relief interest.
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Dismissal (Non-Appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Extinction of Relief Interest (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract)’,” in a new window.
※ A list of decisions relating to extinction of relief interest (expiration of fixed-term contract) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Extinction of Relief Interest (Expiration of Fixed-Term Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
