Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Obligation of Written Notice (Refusal to Renew Fixed-Term Contract)’ Unfair Dismissal Case (Unfair Dismissal 606)
- Date2026/08/08 04:09
- Read 7
[Case Information]
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “obligation of written notice (refusal to renew a fixed-term contract).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae510 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-16 · Outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal existed: As there was no objective evidence to regard the situation as a voluntary resignation, and as the employment relationship was terminated in the course of renewing the fixed-term employment contract by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent against the employee’s will, the termination was deemed an ordinary dismissal.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee whose fixed-term employment contract had been repeatedly renewed, and where the employer, by no longer renewing the contract, in effect terminated the employment relationship irrespective of the employee’s intention. The issue was whether this constituted unfair dismissal. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, together with an application for a monetary compensation order. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission issued a decision fully upholding the claim, ordering the employer to pay KRW 6,997,760 by way of monetary compensation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where the employer unilaterally notifies the employee of contract termination in the course of renewing an employment contract, such termination can be viewed not as a mere contract expiration or resignation but as an unfair dismissal, and, if it is a dismissal, whether it is effective where the employer has violated the obligation of written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that there was no objective evidence to regard the situation as a resignation, that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent in the process of renewing the employment contract, and that the termination occurred against the employee’s will.
Accordingly, it held that the termination of the employment relationship in this case did not constitute contract expiration or voluntary resignation, but rather an ordinary dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract irrespective of the employee’s intention.
Furthermore, in light of the facts that the employer, in dismissing the employee, failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, that the reasons and timing of dismissal were not clearly notified in writing, thereby making it difficult for the employee to exercise his or her right of defense, and that a dismissal becomes effective only when it is notified in writing,
the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was procedurally seriously defective and therefore unfair.
In addition, considering that the employee applied for monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and that, once unfair dismissal is recognized, ordering payment of wages equivalent to the period of dismissal accords with the remedial purpose, the Commission found it appropriate to grant the application for a monetary compensation order, directing payment of KRW 6,997,760, equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if you are a fixed-term employee, you should bear in mind that, where the employer has repeatedly renewed your contract, a notice of contract expiration or refusal to renew may in substance be evaluated as a dismissal. If, in the course of contract termination, you did not submit an explicit resignation letter or clearly express a voluntary intention to resign, but the employer unilaterally severed the relationship merely by filing a loss-of-coverage report for the four major social insurances, excluding you from the work schedule, or giving only oral notice, there is a substantial possibility of contesting unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Furthermore, if you did not receive a written dismissal notice, or did not receive a document clearly stating the reasons and timing of dismissal, it is important to actively assert a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. If reinstatement to your original position is realistically difficult, you should consider, as in this case, applying for a monetary compensation order to seek payment of wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When deciding whether to renew a fixed-term employment contract, you must not proceed relying solely on the formal ground of “expiration of contract term,” but must carefully examine whether, in substance, the situation constitutes a dismissal. In particular, where there is a practice of renewal, or where, under the employment contract, work rules, or HR management practices, there is room to recognize an expectation of renewal, refusal to renew the contract will be subject to the same legal regulations as an ordinary dismissal.
In addition, if you intend to terminate an employment contract, you must provide the employee with a written document specifically stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Proceeding with termination procedures solely by oral notice, HR system changes, or filing a loss-of-coverage report for the four major social insurances may constitute a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, rendering the dismissal itself null and void. Even where the dismissal is an individual ordinary dismissal rather than a collective redundancy, you should establish in advance an HR and labor management system that simultaneously satisfies the obligation of written notice, the justifiability of the reasons for dismissal, and the lawfulness of procedures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal existed
As there was no objective evidence to regard the situation as a resignation, and as the employment relationship was terminated in the course of renewing the employment contract by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent against the employee’s will, the termination was deemed an ordinary dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
As the employer, in dismissing the employee, violated the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
It was deemed appropriate to grant the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of KRW 6,997,760, equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Whether a dismissal existed
As there was no objective evidence to regard the situation as a resignation, and as the employment relationship was terminated in the course of renewing the employment contract by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent against the employee’s will, the termination was deemed an ordinary dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
As the employer, in dismissing the employee, violated the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
It was deemed appropriate to grant the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of KRW 6,997,760, equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Mutual Termination (Handwritten Agreement)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, obligation of written notice (refusal to renew 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Mutual Termination (Handwritten Agreement) Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the obligation of written notice (refusal to renew fixed-term contract) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to the Obligation of Written Notice (Refusal to Renew Fixed-Term Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “obligation of written notice (refusal to renew a fixed-term contract).”
Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae510 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-07-16 · Outcome: Fully upheld (employee’s claim accepted in full)
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether a dismissal existed: As there was no objective evidence to regard the situation as a voluntary resignation, and as the employment relationship was terminated in the course of renewing the fixed-term employment contract by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent against the employee’s will, the termination was deemed an ordinary dismissal.
---
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
This case concerns an employee whose fixed-term employment contract had been repeatedly renewed, and where the employer, by no longer renewing the contract, in effect terminated the employment relationship irrespective of the employee’s intention. The issue was whether this constituted unfair dismissal. The employee filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, together with an application for a monetary compensation order. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission issued a decision fully upholding the claim, ordering the employer to pay KRW 6,997,760 by way of monetary compensation.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether, where the employer unilaterally notifies the employee of contract termination in the course of renewing an employment contract, such termination can be viewed not as a mere contract expiration or resignation but as an unfair dismissal, and, if it is a dismissal, whether it is effective where the employer has violated the obligation of written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
Ⅲ. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
The decision panel in this case found that there was no objective evidence to regard the situation as a resignation, that the employment relationship was terminated by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent in the process of renewing the employment contract, and that the termination occurred against the employee’s will.
Accordingly, it held that the termination of the employment relationship in this case did not constitute contract expiration or voluntary resignation, but rather an ordinary dismissal in which the employer unilaterally terminated the employment contract irrespective of the employee’s intention.
Furthermore, in light of the facts that the employer, in dismissing the employee, failed to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal as required under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, that the reasons and timing of dismissal were not clearly notified in writing, thereby making it difficult for the employee to exercise his or her right of defense, and that a dismissal becomes effective only when it is notified in writing,
the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was procedurally seriously defective and therefore unfair.
In addition, considering that the employee applied for monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and that, once unfair dismissal is recognized, ordering payment of wages equivalent to the period of dismissal accords with the remedial purpose, the Commission found it appropriate to grant the application for a monetary compensation order, directing payment of KRW 6,997,760, equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Even if you are a fixed-term employee, you should bear in mind that, where the employer has repeatedly renewed your contract, a notice of contract expiration or refusal to renew may in substance be evaluated as a dismissal. If, in the course of contract termination, you did not submit an explicit resignation letter or clearly express a voluntary intention to resign, but the employer unilaterally severed the relationship merely by filing a loss-of-coverage report for the four major social insurances, excluding you from the work schedule, or giving only oral notice, there is a substantial possibility of contesting unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Furthermore, if you did not receive a written dismissal notice, or did not receive a document clearly stating the reasons and timing of dismissal, it is important to actively assert a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. If reinstatement to your original position is realistically difficult, you should consider, as in this case, applying for a monetary compensation order to seek payment of wages equivalent to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective)
When deciding whether to renew a fixed-term employment contract, you must not proceed relying solely on the formal ground of “expiration of contract term,” but must carefully examine whether, in substance, the situation constitutes a dismissal. In particular, where there is a practice of renewal, or where, under the employment contract, work rules, or HR management practices, there is room to recognize an expectation of renewal, refusal to renew the contract will be subject to the same legal regulations as an ordinary dismissal.
In addition, if you intend to terminate an employment contract, you must provide the employee with a written document specifically stating the reasons for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Proceeding with termination procedures solely by oral notice, HR system changes, or filing a loss-of-coverage report for the four major social insurances may constitute a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, rendering the dismissal itself null and void. Even where the dismissal is an individual ordinary dismissal rather than a collective redundancy, you should establish in advance an HR and labor management system that simultaneously satisfies the obligation of written notice, the justifiability of the reasons for dismissal, and the lawfulness of procedures.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether a dismissal existed
As there was no objective evidence to regard the situation as a resignation, and as the employment relationship was terminated in the course of renewing the employment contract by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent against the employee’s will, the termination was deemed an ordinary dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
As the employer, in dismissing the employee, violated the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
It was deemed appropriate to grant the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of KRW 6,997,760, equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision.
3. Gist of the Decision
A. Gist of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision
A. Whether a dismissal existed
As there was no objective evidence to regard the situation as a resignation, and as the employment relationship was terminated in the course of renewing the employment contract by the employer’s unilateral declaration of intent against the employee’s will, the termination was deemed an ordinary dismissal.
B. Whether the dismissal was justified
As the employer, in dismissing the employee, violated the obligation of written notice of dismissal prescribed in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the dismissal was unfair.
C. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order
It was deemed appropriate to grant the employee’s application for a monetary compensation order and to order payment of KRW 6,997,760, equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Mutual Termination (Handwritten Agreement)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
- ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
- ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Case
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, obligation of written notice (refusal to renew 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series.
※ You can view the previous article, “Mutual Termination (Handwritten Agreement) Unfair Dismissal Case,” in a new window.
※ The list of decisions related to the obligation of written notice (refusal to renew fixed-term contract) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to the Obligation of Written Notice (Refusal to Renew Fixed-Term Contract).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
