[Case Information] This case is a labor commission decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “mutual intent to convert to regular employment (upon expiry of a fixed-term contract).” Decision date: 2026-06-29 · Labor Commission: Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해535 Summary of key issue: Although it was acknowledged that on 26 February 2026 the employer sent the employee, via Modusign, a draft employment contract based on a five‑day workweek, the employee requested amendments to the draft regarding the base salary, the composition of paid annual leave allowance and public holiday allowance, the contracted monthly working hours, and the method of calculating the ordinary hourly wage. This went beyond mere correction of clerical errors or formal supplementation and constituted objections concerning core terms of the employment contract, such as the structure and calculation method of wages, so that ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This application for remedy for unfair dismissal concerns a decision of the Labor Relations Commission in a case where a fixed-term employee, in the course of discussions on conversion to regular employment, failed to reach agreement with the employer on the terms of the employment contract, and the existing fixed-term contract then ended upon expiry of its term. In Case No. 2026부해535, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, focusing on the regular employment contract proposed by the employer and the employee’s requested amendments, whether a regular employment contract had been concluded and whether a dismissal existed. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, where negotiations on an employment contract premised on conversion to regular employment have taken place but there is no meeting of the minds on core working conditions such as the structure and calculation method of wages, and the existing fixed-term employment contract ends upon expiry of its term, this can be regarded as an unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case found that, although the employer sent, via Modusign, a draft regular employment contract based on a five‑day workweek, and the employee specifically requested amendments to core wage elements such as the base salary, the composition of paid annual leave allowance and public holiday allowance, the contracted monthly working hours, and the method of calculating the ordinary hourly wage, these differences went beyond the level of correcting simple clerical errors or making formal supplements and instead concerned essential terms of the employment contract. In light of this, it was difficult to find that a definitive meeting of the minds had been reached between the parties on the conclusion of a regular employment contract. Accordingly, it could not be said that an offer and acceptance regarding a regular employment contract had been definitively made, and it was difficult to recognize that a regular employment contract to be effective from 1 March 2026 had been formed. The employment relationship merely ended upon expiry of the term of the existing fixed-term employment contract, and therefore it was determined that no dismissal existed in this case, and the application alleging unfair dismissal was dismissed. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, even if discussions on conversion to regular employment are underway, a regular employment contract will not easily be deemed to have been formed in law unless there is clear agreement on core working conditions such as the structure and calculation method of wages. When the expiry of a fixed-term employment contract is approaching and an employee wishes to allege unfair dismissal, it is important to secure sufficient specific documents and evidence of practices that can substantiate a firm promise of conversion to regular employment or an expectation of contract renewal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s (Company’s) Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to keep written records of the draft employment contract presented during discussions on conversion to regular employment, the employee’s requested amendments, and the course of negotiations, so that it is objectively clear whether final agreement has been reached. In addition, on the premise of the legal principle that a fixed-term employment contract, in principle, terminates upon expiry of its term, employers should clearly set out in the rules of employment, etc. the criteria and procedures for conversion to regular employment or renewal of contracts, in order to prevent future disputes over unfair dismissal. This decision of the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission is significant in that, in determining whether an unfair dismissal has occurred, it examined strictly whether there was a concrete and definitive agreement on the core terms of the employment contract, rather than focusing on the mere existence of a “promise of conversion to regular employment.” In similar cases, both employees and employers are advised to comprehensively review the structure of fixed-term and regular employment conversions, expectations of renewal, and the legal principles on redundancy dismissals, with the assistance of a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that, as the existing fixed-term employment contract merely ended upon expiry of its term without any meeting of the minds on the conclusion of a regular employment contract, no dismissal existed. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Reasoning Although it was acknowledged that on 26 February 2026 the employer sent the employee, via Modusign, a draft employment contract based on a five‑day workweek, the employee requested amendments to the draft regarding the base salary, the composition of paid annual leave allowance and public holiday allowance, the contracted monthly working hours, and the method of calculating the ordinary hourly wage. This can be seen as raising objections concerning core terms of the employment contract, such as the structure and calculation method of wages, going beyond mere correction of clerical errors or formal supplementation. Therefore, it is difficult to find that there was a definitive meeting of the minds between the parties on the conclusion of an employment contract. Accordingly, the mere fact that the employer sent a draft regular employment contract and discussed the possibility of conversion to regular employment does not suffice to conclude that an offer and acceptance regarding a regular employment contract were definitively made. Ultimately, it is difficult to recognize that a regular employment contract to be effective from 1 March 2026 was formed between the parties, and, as the employment relationship merely ended upon expiry of the term of the existing fixed-term employment contract, it is difficult to find that any dismissal existed. [See More Related Decisions] - “Expectation of Succession of Employment (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case No.: Initial decision upheld - “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)” – Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, mutual intent to convert to regular employment (expiry of fixed-term contract), refusal to renew 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Working Under the Influence of Alcohol · Concurrent Employment)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to mutual intent to convert to regular employment (expiry of fixed-term contract) can be viewed under “List of Decisions Relating to Mutual Intent to Convert to Regular Employment (Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article