[Case Information] This case is a decision that was concluded by upholding the first-instance ruling on the issue of “expiry of contract term (short-term contract expressly stated).” Decision date: 2026-07-30 · Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해301 Key issue summary: The employment contract drafted by the parties expressly states that the employment period is from 10 November 2025 to 16 November 2025. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. The Central Labor Relations Commission, however, held that the employment relationship had simply ended upon expiry of the contract term and that no dismissal existed. This is a type of case that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice, and it clearly illustrates how the legal effect of a short, fixed term specified in an employment contract is assessed. The employment contract specified the contract period as running from 10 November 2025 to 16 November 2025. The employee asserted that the parties had actually agreed on approximately two months of employment, that the term section of the contract was blank at the time of signing, and that the employer filled it in afterwards. The Labor Relations Commission found, however, that no objective evidence had been submitted to support this assertion. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, where a short fixed term is expressly stated in the employment contract, but the employee alleges that the term was filled in after signing and that a two‑month period had been agreed, the termination of the employment relationship should be viewed as “expiry of contract term” or as an unfair dismissal. More specifically, the key issues were: (i) whether the effectiveness of the contract term stated in the employment contract, which is the dispositive document, could be denied; and (ii) whether, in the absence of any separate renewal agreement or practice of repeated renewals, the employment contract could nonetheless be regarded in substance as a contract with no fixed term, or whether a legitimate expectation of renewal (renewal expectancy right) could be recognized. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that the employment contract signed by the parties clearly specified the contract period as 10 November 2025 to 16 November 2025; that no objective evidence had been submitted to prove the employee’s allegation that the term section was blank at the time of signing and that the employer arbitrarily filled in the contract period after the employee signed; and that there were likewise no materials supporting the existence of any provision on renewal of the employment contract, any practice of repeated renewals, or any agreement to work for two months. In light of these circumstances, the panel found that there were no special circumstances that would justify denying the wording of the employment contract as a dispositive document, and that it was difficult to view the fixed‑term employment contract as having been converted in substance into an employment contract with no fixed term. Accordingly, the employment relationship between the parties must be regarded as having automatically terminated upon expiry of the period stated in the employment contract, and since the employer did not separately express any intention to dismiss, the panel held that no “dismissal disposition” existed in this case and that the claim of unfair dismissal could not be accepted. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, before contesting an unfair dismissal, it is essential to carefully check how the contract term is stated in the employment contract you signed and whether any renewal‑related provisions or practices actually exist. If you intend to argue that the stated contract term is false or was filled in after the fact, you must prepare objective evidence such as a copy of the contract showing the term section blank at the time of signing, recordings, text or messenger messages, or statements from third parties. In addition, if you wish to assert a renewal expectancy right based on repeated renewals or the employer’s attitude of guaranteeing renewal, it is important to systematically organize concrete circumstances such as the actual number of re‑contracts, work rules or internal guidelines containing renewal criteria, and colleagues’ renewal practices. Bear in mind that where the contract is a one‑off or short‑term contract, termination will, in principle, be regarded as occurring upon expiry of the term. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, when hiring fixed‑term employees, it is important to clearly state the contract term in the employment contract and to manage procedures so that the employee signs after fully recognizing and having the contents explained. The practice of correcting or adding to the contract term after signing arouses strong suspicion in subsequent disputes; therefore, the timing of drafting, explaining, and signing should be aligned, and, where necessary, procedures should be established to obtain confirmation that an explanation has been provided. Furthermore, unlike redundancy dismissals, fixed‑term employment contracts, in principle, terminate automatically upon expiry of the term in the absence of special circumstances. However, if a renewal expectancy right is formed through repeated renewals or statements/guidelines guaranteeing renewal, the matter can escalate into an unfair dismissal issue. Accordingly, it is necessary to clearly set out policies on the use of fixed‑term employees and the criteria and procedures for renewal in work rules and internal regulations, and to train HR and on‑site managers not to make indiscriminate statements such as “we’ll keep you on” or “two months are guaranteed.” 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that no dismissal existed because the employment relationship between the parties had terminated upon expiry of the contract term. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employment contract drafted by the parties expressly states that the employment period is from 10 November 2025 to 16 November 2025. The employee asserted that the contract term section was blank at the time of signing the employment contract and that the employer arbitrarily filled in the contract period after the employee signed. However, since no objective evidence was submitted to prove this, it is difficult to deny the effectiveness of the employment contract, which is the dispositive document. In addition, there were no provisions on renewal of the employment contract or any practice of repeated renewals, and the employee’s assertion that he or she had agreed with the employer to work for approximately two months was not corroborated by objective materials. Therefore, the employment relationship between the parties terminated upon expiry of the contract term, and no dismissal exists. [See More Related Decisions] - Unfair dismissal decision relating to “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)” - Unfair dismissal decision relating to “Relief Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employee)” - Unfair dismissal decision relating to “Excessive Disciplinary Measure (Negligent Supervision/Management)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expiry of contract term (short‑term contract expressly stated), 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. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair dismissal decision relating to ‘Reassignment Order (Change of Workplace for Academy Instructor)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions relating to expiry of contract term (short‑term contract expressly stated) can be found in the “List of Decisions Relating to Expiry of Contract Term (Short‑Term Contract Expressly Stated).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article