[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “standing as a party (expiry of dispatch worker’s contract).” Date of Decision: 2026-07-27 · Decision Authority: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026BuHae1791 Key Issue Summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal filed against a dispatching employer, in which the issues were (i) whether Employer 2 qualifies as an “employer” and thus has standing as a party, and (ii) whether the termination of the dispatched worker’s employment relationship constituted an unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, taking into account the expiry of the dispatch employment contract period and the circumstances surrounding the worker’s unauthorized absence, held that the employment relationship ended upon expiry of the contract period and that no dismissal existed as such. The key issues in this case are: “Where a dispatched worker is employed under a fixed-term contract and that contract period expires in the course of employment, can the termination of the employment relationship be regarded as an unfair dismissal, and does the dispatching employer have standing as an employer?” Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are, first, whether the dispatching employer (Employer 2), who concluded the employment contract with the dispatched worker and paid the worker’s wages, has standing as an “employer” in the labor commission proceedings. Second, where the contract period specified in the written employment contract has expired, whether, even taking into account the worker’s unauthorized absence, it can be said that there was a dismissal based on the employer’s unilateral intention. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings The decision panel found that Employer 2 had directly concluded the employment contract with the dispatched worker, paid wages, and otherwise exercised rights and obligations under the employment contract, and that Employer 2, as the dispatching employer, in substance held the status of employer. Accordingly, Employer 2 was recognized as having standing as an employer. As to the alleged dismissal, the panel held that, in light of the following: (i) the worker was initially hired as a dispatched worker under a fixed-term contract; (ii) the employment contract expressly provided expiry of the contract period as a ground for termination of the employment relationship; (iii) the actual contract period was specified as running until 9 April 2026; and (iv) the worker had been absent without leave from 29 March 2026 through the contract expiry date and was not providing labor to the employer when the period expired, the employment relationship must be deemed to have automatically terminated upon expiry of the contract period. The panel therefore found that there was no dismissal based on a unilateral manifestation of intent by the employer. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) In the case of fixed-term and dispatched workers, it is important to check carefully the contract period and grounds for termination as set out in the employment contract. However, where the contract has been repeatedly renewed, or where, due to the employer’s practices or promises, a “legitimate expectation of continued employment” has been formed, there may be room to argue that, even if the termination is formally styled as expiry of the contract period, it substantively constitutes an unfair dismissal or an unfair refusal to renew. In such cases, it is necessary to整理 the specific facts and consult the Labor Relations Commission or a professional. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) When concluding employment contracts with dispatched or fixed-term workers, employers should clearly document the contract period, grounds for termination, and conditions for renewal, and manage actual operations so that they are consistent with those terms. In addition, where the employment relationship is to be terminated upon expiry of the contract period, records should be kept in a manner that objectively shows “automatic termination upon expiry of the contract period,” rather than in the form of a dismissal notice. Employers should also review and establish HR management standards in advance so that, due to repeated renewals or similar practices, the contract is not effectively recharacterized as an employment contract with no fixed term. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which Employer 2 was recognized as having standing as an employer, and it was held that the employment relationship with the worker who had concluded a dispatch employment contract ended upon expiry of the contract period, so that no dismissal existed. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Commission’s Findings a. Whether the Respondent Employers Have Standing as Parties Employer 2, the dispatching employer, is a corporation engaged in the business of worker dispatch. It concluded an employment contract with the worker and paid wages, thereby exercising rights and obligations relating to the employment contract. Accordingly, Employer 2, as the dispatching employer, is the worker’s employer. b. Whether a Dismissal Exists In light of the following: (i) the worker was hired as a dispatched worker under a fixed-term contract; (ii) the employment contract provided expiry of the contract as a ground for termination of the employment contract; (iii) the worker’s contract end date was 9 April 2026; and (iv) the employment contract period expired while the worker was absent without leave from 29 March to 9 April 2026 and was not providing labor to the employer, the panel found that the employment relationship was terminated upon expiry of the contract period and that no dismissal of the worker existed. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” – Date of Decision: – Case No.: Initial Decision Upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on Interest in Relief / Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, standing as a party (expiry of dispatch worker’s contract), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, unauthorized absence, 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 on Business Necessity (Closure of Branch Managed by Store Manager),” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to standing as a party (expiry of dispatch worker’s contract) can be found under “List of Decisions on Standing as a Party (Expiry of Dispatch Worker’s Contract).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article