[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “fixed-term employee (three-month ultra-short-term contract).” Decision date: 2026-09-22 · Decision body: Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae165 Key issue summary: □ Whether the worker falls under an employee with a fixed term of employment ○ There were no provisions in the company’s rules of employment establishing the basis for fixed-term employment contracts or the procedures upon expiration, and in practice no concrete criteria had been established regarding whether to extend the contract; the employment contract set the contract period at three months and there had been no repeated renewals; the continuous service period did not exceed two years; and the phrase “possible extension upon mutual agreement” merely stipulated a possibility of extension and could not be interpreted to mean that the contract term was a mere formality… 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a worker who had entered into a three‑month fixed-term employment contract expected to continue working after the contract expired. When the employer terminated the employment relationship upon expiration without renewal, the worker filed an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. The Jeju Regional Labor Relations Commission reviewed the employment contract, rules of employment, and other relevant circumstances to determine whether the termination constituted unfair dismissal. In this process, the legal principles on expectation of renewal, as organized by Labor Law Firm Law&, served as a key standard. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, in a situation where a three‑month fixed-term employee has no experience of repeated renewals and there are no separate criteria or procedures for renewal in the rules of employment or the employment contract, the termination of the employment relationship on the ground of contract expiration constitutes unfair dismissal—in other words, whether the worker can be recognized as having an expectation of renewal of the employment contract. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case found that there were no provisions in the company’s rules of employment regarding the legal basis for fixed-term employment contracts, the procedures upon expiration, or the criteria for renewal; that the employment contract explicitly stated a three‑month contract period and there had in fact been no repeated renewals; that the continuous service period did not exceed two years, so this was not a situation of automatic conversion to an indefinite-term contract under the Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees Protection Act; and that the phrase “possible extension upon mutual agreement” merely indicated the possibility of extension and could not be taken to mean that the contract term was a mere formality. Taken together, the panel held that the worker fell under an employee with a fixed term of employment. With respect to expectation of renewal of the employment contract, the panel considered that there were no express provisions on renewal in the rules of employment; that the extension clause in the employment contract did not set out specific conditions or procedures for renewal; and that there was no evidence that the worker had actually requested mutual consultation for extension. In light of these factors, the panel determined that it was difficult to find that a relationship of trust had been formed under which the contract would naturally be renewed upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Unlike cases where the existence of an expectation of renewal is recognized and the issue is whether there was a reasonable ground for refusal to renew, this case was one in which the expectation of renewal itself was not recognized from the outset. Accordingly, the panel held that the termination of the employment relationship upon expiration of the contract period was justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Worker’s Perspective) If the contract period is clearly specified in the employment contract and there is no practice of repeated renewals or any provisions on renewal in the rules of employment or collective agreement, you should be aware that the mere presence of wording such as “possible extension” will generally not suffice to establish an expectation of renewal. When entering employment as a fixed-term worker, it is important for preventing disputes to clarify in writing the contract period, renewal requirements, evaluation criteria, and the possibility of conversion to regular or indefinite-term employment. In addition, as the contract expiration approaches, if there is a “mutual consultation” clause, you should actually request consultation on renewal and keep objective records of that process and the employer’s response, such as by email. These records can later serve as evidence when asserting the formation of an expectation of renewal before the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, when utilizing fixed-term employment contracts, it is advisable to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and HR regulations the purpose of using fixed-term employment, the contract period, whether and under what criteria contracts may be renewed, and the evaluation procedures. In particular, where only abstract expressions such as “possible extension” are used and, in practice, decisions have been made at the employer’s discretion based on staffing needs or work performance, there is a risk that an expectation of renewal may be recognized due to long-term repeated renewals or practices concerning similar workers. Accordingly, it is important to ensure consistency between the written provisions and actual operation. Furthermore, when intending to terminate the relationship upon contract expiration, it is helpful for preventing future unfair dismissal disputes to organize materials demonstrating that no expectation of renewal has been formed—such as the number of times contracts have been renewed, examples of contract expirations for similar positions, and whether the business itself is temporary—and to clearly state in the notice of expiration that the relationship is “automatically terminated upon expiration of the contract period.” 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that the worker did not have an expectation of renewal of the employment contract, and therefore the employer’s termination of the employment relationship on the ground of contract expiration was justified. 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning □ Whether the worker falls under an employee with a fixed term of employment ○ There were no provisions in the company’s rules of employment establishing the basis for fixed-term employment contracts or the procedures upon expiration, and in practice no concrete criteria had been established regarding whether to extend the contract; the employment contract set the contract period at three months and there had been no repeated renewals; the continuous service period did not exceed two years; and the phrase “possible extension upon mutual agreement” merely stipulated a possibility of extension and could not be interpreted to mean that the contract term was a mere formality. In light of these factors, the worker falls under an employee with a fixed term of employment. □ Whether there is an expectation of renewal of the employment contract ○ There are no explicit provisions on contract renewal in the company’s rules of employment, the extension clause in the employment contract does not set out the conditions or procedures for renewal, and there is no evidence that the worker requested mutual consultation for extension. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that a trust-based expectation regarding renewal of the employment contract was formed, and an expectation of renewal cannot be recognized. The employment relationship between the parties is therefore deemed to have terminated upon expiration of the contract period. Consequently, there is no need to further examine whether there was a reasonable ground for refusal to renew on the premise that an expectation of renewal existed. [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Remedy Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaner)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision on ‘Expectation of Succession of Employment (Logistics Center Competitive Bidding)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, fixed-term employee (three-month ultra-short-term contract), 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 on ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Ophthalmology Coordinator)’,” in a new window. ※ You can view the list of decisions related to fixed-term employees (three-month ultra-short-term contracts) in the “List of Decisions Related to Fixed-Term Employees (Three-Month Ultra-Short-Term Contracts).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article