[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the issue was “expiry of fixed-term contract (short-term contract specified),” and the first-instance decision was upheld. Decision body: Central Labor Relations Commission 2026BuHae301 ○ ○ ○ Application for Reconsideration of Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-30 · Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld Summary of key issue: … the term of employment is specified as running from 10 November 2025 to 16 November 2025. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employee claimed that the employer’s notice of contract termination constituted an unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. However, in the reconsideration proceedings, the Central Labor Relations Commission upheld the first-instance decision and ruled in favor of the employer. The employment contract expressly stated that the employment period would run from 10 November 2025 to 16 November 2025, and the Commission assessed the nature of the termination of the employment relationship based on this contract and the surrounding circumstances. The employee argued that, at the time of signing, the section of the employment contract relating to the contract period had been left blank, and that the employer had subsequently filled in a short-term contract period on its own initiative and, on the basis of the contract’s expiry, had in substance carried out an unfair dismissal. However, referring to existing precedents and legal principles organized by Labor Law Firm Law&, the Commission viewed this matter not as an unfair dismissal but as a termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the fixed term, and therefore held that there was no remedial interest. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where a short-term contract period is specified in the employment contract, an ongoing employment relationship or a legitimate expectation of renewal (right to expect renewal) — which is a prerequisite for an application for remedy for unfair dismissal — can still be recognized when the employee disputes the contract as having been signed with the term left blank and filled in later. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that the employment contract specified the employment period as running from 10 November 2025 to 16 November 2025; that no objective evidence had been submitted to prove the employee’s allegation that the employer had arbitrarily filled in the contract period after obtaining the employee’s signature on a contract with the term left blank; and that there were no provisions on renewal of the employment contract, no established practice of repeated renewals, and no objective evidence to support the employee’s assertion that the parties had agreed to approximately two months of work. In light of the above, the Commission held that, as a dispositive document, the wording of the employment contract must be given primary respect, and that in this case there were no special circumstances sufficient to overturn that wording. Accordingly, the employment relationship between the parties had simply come to an end upon expiry of the agreed contract period. It could not be regarded as an employment contract with no fixed term, nor could a legitimate expectation of renewal be recognized. Therefore, the Commission concluded that there was no remedial interest that would allow the employee to file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s standpoint, in order to contest an unfair dismissal, it is first necessary to be able to prove that one’s employment relationship did not simply end due to expiry of the contract period. In particular, assertions that the contract was signed with the term left blank or that it was altered afterwards must be supported by specific evidence such as recorded conversations, text messages, emails, or third-party statements. In addition, when claiming redundancy (collective dismissal) or unlawful refusal to renew, it is important to have secured in advance materials that can serve as the basis for a “legitimate expectation of renewal,” such as evidence of repeated renewals, statements by the employer premised on renewal, and provisions on renewal in work rules or collective agreements. When entering into an employment contract, employees should always check the contract period, the possibility of renewal, and the possibility of conversion to regular employment. If the wording is ambiguous or differs from the oral explanation, they should immediately request written correction and secure a copy for their own records. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when hiring fixed-term employees, it is essential to clearly state the contract period in the employment contract, fully explain its meaning to the employee, and then obtain the employee’s signature. Practices such as altering the employment contract afterwards or obtaining signatures on contracts with blank sections should be strictly avoided, as they pose significant risks in future disputes over unfair dismissal or redundancy. Furthermore, practices of repeated renewal, conversion to regular employment, or vague explanations such as “you can continue working as long as there are no issues” may lead to disputes over legitimate expectations of renewal. Employers should therefore clearly stipulate the criteria and procedures for renewal in work rules and internal guidelines, and when notifying employees of contract expiry, consistently inform them that the employment is ending “due to expiry of the fixed term.” By managing these aspects proactively, companies can significantly enhance their defensive position in unfair dismissal disputes before the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Determined a. Case Overview and Procedural History … the term of employment is specified as running from 10 November 2025 to 16 November 2025. The employee argues that, at the time of signing the employment contract, the contract period was left blank and that the employer arbitrarily filled in the contract period after obtaining the employee’s signature. However, since no objective evidence has been submitted to prove this allegation, it is difficult to deny the validity of the employment contract as a dispositive document. In addition, there are no provisions on renewal of the employment contract or established practices of repeated renewal, and the employee’s assertion that the parties agreed to approximately two months of work is likewise not supported by objective evidence. Accordingly, as the employment relationship between the parties ended upon expiry of the contract period, there is no remedial interest. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning … the term of employment is specified as running from 10 November 2025 to 16 November 2025. The employee argues that, at the time of signing the employment contract, the contract period was left blank and that the employer arbitrarily filled in the contract period after obtaining the employee’s signature. However, since no objective evidence has been submitted to prove this allegation, it is difficult to deny the validity of the employment contract as a dispositive document. In addition, there are no provisions on renewal of the employment contract or established practices of repeated renewal, and the employee’s assertion that the parties agreed to approximately two months of work is likewise not supported by objective evidence. Accordingly, as the employment relationship between the parties ended upon expiry of the contract period, there is no remedial interest. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Date of decision: – Case outcome: First-instance decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Transfer Order (Change of Workplace for Private Academy Instructor)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy (Workout Company)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, expiry of fixed-term contract (short-term contract specified), 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, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Transfer Order (Change of Workplace for Private Academy Instructor)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions relating to expiry of fixed-term contract (short-term contract specified) can be viewed together under “List of Decisions Relating to Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract (Short-Term Contract Specified).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article