[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “extinction of relief interest (three‑month probationary site manager).” Decision date: 2026-09-07 · Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해303 Key issue summary: The Labor Relations Commission found that the employment contract clearly specified a three‑month probationary period and clearly identified the commencement and expiration dates of the contract; the work rules stipulated that the employment contract period for new hires is three months and that any extension is to be submitted to the residents’ representative council one month before the contract end date and decided by majority resolution; the employee referred to himself as a probationary site manager, thereby recognizing that the employment relationship was formed on the premise of a three‑month term; and after the contract period specified in the employment contract had expired, ... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an unfair dismissal claim filed with the Labor Relations Commission by an employee hired as a probationary site manager of an apartment complex. The issue was whether, at the time of filing the application for relief, the fixed‑term employment contract had already expired. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, taking into account the agreed contract term, the work rules, and the parties’ understanding, held that the employment contract had terminated upon expiration of its term and that, therefore, there was no longer any relief interest to be adjudicated in the Labor Relations Commission proceedings. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether “an application for relief from unfair dismissal filed by an employee has any relief interest where the employment relationship, based on a three‑month probationary period expressly stipulated in the employment contract and the work rules, has already ended due to expiration of the term.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case noted that the employment contract clearly stated a three‑month probationary period and clearly specified the start and end dates of the contract; the work rules provided that the employment contract period for new hires is three months and that the question of extension is to be decided by resolution of the residents’ representative council; and the employee worked on the premise of a three‑month probationary employment relationship, referring to himself as a “probationary site manager.” The Commission determined that the employment contract naturally terminated upon expiration of the agreed term and that, at the time of the application for relief, the employee had already lost his status as an employee. Accordingly, even if there were room to dispute the validity of the dismissal, any order of relief by the Labor Relations Commission, such as reinstatement or payment of wages in lieu, could not be realized, and the relief interest was deemed to have been extinguished. Applying the Supreme Court’s doctrine that “relief interest is extinguished upon expiration of the employment contract term,” the Commission held that the dismissal in this case was unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Where an employee has entered into a fixed‑term or probationary employment contract, an application for relief from unfair dismissal must, in principle, be filed with the Labor Relations Commission while the employment contract is still valid and in force. If the application is filed after the contract term has already expired, the application may be dismissed on the ground that there is no relief interest in terms of “reinstatement or payment of wages,” even if the dismissal is unfair, and in such a case, wages for the dismissal period and other claims must be pursued separately through civil litigation. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly state the commencement and expiration dates of the contract term in employment contracts with probationary or fixed‑term employees, and to set out in the work rules specific provisions on the contract period for new hires and the procedures for extension. In addition, in actual practice, titles and positions consistent with the contractual arrangement, such as “probationary site manager,” should be used so that both parties clearly recognize that the relationship is a fixed‑term employment relationship. This will help reduce unnecessary disputes in future unfair dismissal cases regarding the existence of relief interest and whether the contract term has expired. (ⓒ2026 copyright. Labor Attorney Moon Young‑seop, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held that there was no relief interest because the employment relationship had already ended before the application for relief from the dismissal was filed. 3. Summary of Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning Considering that the employment contract set a three‑month probationary period and clearly specified the commencement and expiration dates of the contract term; the work rules provided that the employment contract period for new hires is three months and that the matter is to be submitted to the residents’ representative council one month before the contract end date and decided by majority resolution; the employee recognized that the employment relationship was formed on the premise of a three‑month term, referring to himself as a probationary site manager; and the application for relief was filed after the contract term specified in the employment contract had expired, the Commission found that, regardless of the validity of the dismissal, the employee had already lost his status as an employee at the time of the application for relief and thus had no remaining interest in obtaining a relief order from the Labor Relations Commission. Therefore, there was no relief interest. [Related Decisions] - “Extinction of Relief Interest · Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)” Unfair Dismissal Decision - “Non‑Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case No.: Initial decision upheld - “Dismissal (Non‑Appearance at Hearing)” Unfair Dismissal Decision – Decision date: – Case No.: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, extinction of relief interest (three‑month probationary site manager), dismissal during probation, 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Absence of Just Cause (Lack of Communication · Poor Performance)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to extinction of relief interest (three‑month probationary site manager) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Extinction of Relief Interest (Three‑Month Probationary Site Manager).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article