[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “establishment of employment relationship (daily worker employment contract).” Decision Committee: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae2803 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-07 · Case Result: Dismissed Summary of key issue: … It is deemed that an employment contract was concluded on a one‑day basis. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this unfair dismissal case, the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming to be a regular (non‑fixed‑term) employee and seeking relief from dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application. As in similar cases handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, the wording of the written employment contract and the actual pattern of work were the core elements of the decision. The Commission held that, in this case, the employment relationship itself was a daily employment contract that terminated on a one‑day basis. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case was whether, “where the employment contract clearly states that it is a daily employment contract on a one‑day basis, and in practice the employee’s work each day was determined according to the volume of work, the employee can nonetheless be regarded as a regular employee without a fixed term, and, accordingly, whether the employer’s act of excluding the employee from providing work constitutes an unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel took into comprehensive consideration the following: the fact that the employment contract specifically stated to the effect that “it is deemed that an employment contract is concluded on a one‑day basis”; the fact that, upon joining the company, the employee checked the contents of the contract and personally signed it, and testified at the hearing that “I misunderstood it as regular employment because the employment period was not stated in the contract”; and the fact that the employer did not specify fixed working days in the contract but determined daily whether the employee would work according to the volume of work, and there was no evidence that the employee raised any particular objection to this. As a result, the Commission found that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer constituted a daily employment contract in which the employment ended on a one‑day basis, and held that a regular employment contract without a fixed term had not been established. The dismissal in this case was ultimately viewed not as a “termination of an employment contract without a fixed term,” but rather as closer to the natural expiration of a daily employment relationship that was, from the outset, structured to terminate on a one‑day basis. Accordingly, it held that no “dismissal” subject to remedy for unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act had occurred, and dismissed the employee’s application for remedy. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to check, at the time of joining, the sections of the employment contract concerning “employment period” and “type of employment (daily, fixed‑term, open‑ended, etc.).” If the signed employment contract clearly states that it is a daily employment contract and, in practice, whether you work is determined each day according to the volume of work, there will be significant limitations later on in asserting the status of a regular employee or claiming unfair dismissal. Even where the form is fixed‑term or daily, there are exceptional cases in which, due to repeated renewals, performance of regular and continuous duties, and established renewal practices, the employee is in substance regarded as an employee without a fixed term. It is therefore important to organize your work history and renewal practices into objective materials (employment contracts, pay slips, attendance records, etc.). Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when utilizing daily workers or short‑term contract workers, the “contract period, type of employment, and point of termination of the employment relationship” should be stated specifically and clearly in the employment contract. In addition, actual operations should be aligned with the contract, and the substance of a daily employment contract should be maintained—for example, by not fixing prescribed working days and determining daily whether the employee will work according to the volume of work—in order to reduce the likelihood of disputes. Furthermore, where the same employee’s contract is repeatedly renewed over a long period, or where the employee is in effect assigned to regular and continuous duties while being maintained only formally as a daily worker, the courts may regard the contract period as merely formal and recognize the employee as an open‑ended (indefinite‑term) employee. Employers should bear this in mind. To prevail in this type of case, it is advisable to manage matters so that the wording of the employment contract and the substance of the actual working arrangements are consistent, and to systematically retain materials concerning the period, type, and renewal practices of employment. It is best to check HR and labor‑management risks in advance with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History … the fact that the contract specifically states, “it is deemed that an employment contract was concluded on a one‑day basis”; (ii) the fact that the employee, upon joining the company, checked the contents of the employment contract and personally signed it, and stated at the hearing, “I misunderstood it as regular employment because the employment period was not stated in the contract”; and (iii) the fact that the employer, without specifying prescribed working days in the employment contract, determined daily whether the employee would work according to the volume of work, and there is no evidence that the employee raised any objection to this. Taking all of these into comprehensive consideration, the Commission found that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer constituted a daily employment contract in which the employment ended on a one‑day basis, and held that a [non‑fixed‑term] employment relationship had not been established. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … the fact that the contract specifically states, “it is deemed that an employment contract was concluded on a one‑day basis”; (ii) the fact that the employee, upon joining the company, checked the contents of the employment contract and personally signed it, and stated at the hearing, “I misunderstood it as regular employment because the employment period was not stated in the contract”; and (iii) the fact that the employer, without specifying prescribed working days in the employment contract, determined daily whether the employee would work according to the volume of work, and there is no evidence that the employee raised any objection to this. Taking all of these into comprehensive consideration, the Commission found that the employment relationship between the employee and the employer constituted a daily employment contract in which the employment ended on a one‑day basis, and held that a [non‑fixed‑term] employment relationship had not been established. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non‑Formation of Hiring Decision (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: First‑instance decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Dismissal of Application (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, establishment of employment relationship (daily worker employment 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 on ‘Re‑discipline and Appropriateness of Disciplinary Measure (Informal Speech and Prior Reprimand)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to establishment of employment relationship (daily worker employment contract) can be found together at “List of Decisions Related to Establishment of Employment Relationship (Daily Worker Employment Contract).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article