[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “existence of dismissal (childcare teacher at daycare center).” Date of Decision: 2026-07-28 · Labor Relations Commission: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해721 Key Issue Summary: The employment contract clearly specified the employment period as from 1 November 2025 to 28 February 2026. The employee sent a message to the employer on 30 January 2026 stating that she would resign upon expiry of the contract period, and on 26 February 2026 she informed some of her fellow childcare teachers of her resignation. It was therefore deemed that she recognized the expiry of the employment contract and accepted the resulting termination of the employment relationship. 1. Legal Implications This unfair dismissal case was contested before the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission and concerned whether the termination of the employment relationship following expiry of the fixed-term contract of a childcare teacher constituted a dismissal. The Labor Relations Commission applied legal principles that are repeatedly invoked in fixed-term and redundancy dismissal disputes frequently handled by Labor Law Firm Law&, and held that the employment relationship ended due to expiry of the fixed-term contract. Accordingly, it did not find unfair dismissal. Ⅰ. Case Overview The employee in this case worked as a childcare teacher at a daycare center under a fixed-term employment contract running from 1 November 2025 to 28 February 2026. Shortly before the contract expired, the employee sent a message to the employer stating that she would resign upon expiry of the contract period and informed her fellow teachers of her resignation. Thereafter, she filed an unfair dismissal relief application with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging workplace bullying by the employer and dismissal on 26 February 2026. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case was whether, in circumstances where the employment contract specified a fixed term and the employee had expressed an intention to resign upon expiry of that term, there existed workplace bullying or an implied dismissal by the employer, and thus whether there was a “dismissal” at all, which is a prerequisite for an unfair dismissal relief application. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel noted that the employment contract clearly specified the employment period as from 1 November 2025 to 28 February 2026; that on 30 January 2026 the employee sent a message to the employer stating that she would resign upon expiry of the contract period; and that on 26 February 2026 she informed fellow childcare teachers of her resignation, thereby acting on the premise of resigning upon expiry of the contract. The panel further found that there was no objective evidence to support the employee’s allegation of dismissal on 26 February 2026; that the employer, on the contrary, had encouraged the employee to continue working and thus showed an intention to maintain the employment relationship; and that the employer had given the employee high marks for cooperativeness in her evaluation, and that around the time of her resignation the employee exchanged messages of gratitude and consideration with some of her colleagues. In light of these circumstances, the panel concluded that it was difficult to accept the employee’s claim that she had been forced to resign due to workplace bullying by the employer or that she had been unilaterally dismissed. Accordingly, it held that the employment relationship in this case naturally terminated upon expiry of the fixed-term contract, that there was no dismissal based on the unilateral will of the employer, and that there was therefore no need to further examine the legitimacy of any dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Fixed-term employees should be aware that the contract period specified in the employment contract, as well as their own messages and statements to colleagues, will become key evidence in determining whether the termination was a “dismissal” or simply “expiry of the fixed term.” If the employee clearly expressed an intention to resign upon expiry of the contract and there is even evidence that the employer encouraged the employee to continue working, it may become very difficult to later claim unfair dismissal. In addition, to argue that a fixed-term employment contract has in substance been converted into an indefinite-term contract or that a legitimate expectation of renewal has arisen, the employee must present concrete evidence such as a practice of repeated renewals, provisions for automatic extension, or long-term continuous service. A single, short-term contract alone will generally not suffice to bring the case within the protective scope of unfair dismissal jurisprudence. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when hiring fixed-term employees it is important to clearly specify the contract period in the employment contract and to communicate transparently in writing or via messages about the timing of contract expiry and any subsequent plans. Evidence that the employee voluntarily expressed an intention to resign upon expiry of the contract, and records that the employer encouraged continued employment, can serve as key materials to prove the “non-existence of dismissal” in any future unfair dismissal dispute. Furthermore, to avoid misunderstandings of workplace bullying or forced resignation, employers should manage HR matters—such as evaluation contents, interview records, and relationships with colleagues—in a consistent and reasonable manner. When communicating with employees whose fixed-term contracts are nearing expiry, it is helpful for dispute prevention to clearly explain the reasons and procedures for contract termination so that they do not experience anxiety similar to that associated with redundancy dismissals. 2. Determination A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was determined that the employment relationship ended upon expiry of the fixed-term employment contract and that no dismissal existed. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The employment contract specified the employment period as from 1 November 2025 to 28 February 2026. The employee sent a message to the employer on 30 January 2026 stating that she would resign upon expiry of the contract period, and on 26 February 2026 she informed some of her fellow childcare teachers of her resignation. It therefore appears that she recognized the expiry of the employment contract and accepted the resulting termination of the employment relationship. There is no objective evidence to support the employee’s allegation of dismissal on 26 February 2026, and the employer encouraged the employee to continue working, thereby showing an intention to maintain the employment relationship. In addition, taking into account that the employer gave the employee high marks for cooperativeness in her evaluation and that around the time of her resignation the employee exchanged messages of gratitude and consideration with some of her fellow childcare teachers, it is difficult to accept the employee’s claim that she was forced to resign due to workplace bullying by the employer. Accordingly, the employment relationship in this case terminated upon expiry of the fixed-term employment contract, and as there was no dismissal based on the unilateral will of the employer, there is no need to further examine the legitimacy of any dismissal. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Interest in Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employee)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, existence of dismissal (childcare teacher at daycare center), 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Non-Existence of Urgent Managerial Necessity (Abolition of Leasing Business Team)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to the existence of dismissal (childcare teacher at daycare center) can be viewed under “List of Decisions on Existence of Dismissal (Childcare Teacher at Daycare Center).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article