[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “non-existence of an expectation of renewal (open recruitment and absence of a practice of conversion to indefinite-term contracts).” Date of decision: 2026-09-07 · Decision body: Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해710 Key issue summary: A clause in the employment contract setting out grounds for exclusion from re‑contracting does not mean that renewal is guaranteed, and Article 13(2) of the work rules recognizes implied renewal only where neither party gives notice of termination. In this case, the employer delivered a notice of contract expiration one month before the end of the term, thereby clearly expressing its intention to terminate the employment contract, so the requirements for implied renewal were not met. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, a fixed-term employee expected renewal after the expiration of the contract period. However, the employer did not renew the contract, instead conducting an open recruitment process, and the employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, alleging unfair dismissal. The Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether a relationship of trust regarding renewal of the employment contract had been formed and whether an expectation of renewal could be recognized, and ultimately rendered a decision in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether an employee can be recognized as having an expectation of renewal of an employment contract “where the employment contract specifies grounds for exclusion from re‑contracting and the work rules contain a provision on implied renewal, but the employer, having given prior notice of contract expiration, proceeded with open recruitment.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case held that the clause in the employment contract setting out grounds for exclusion from re‑contracting does not constitute a “guarantee of renewal,” but merely stipulates grounds on which re‑contracting may not occur. Article 13(2) of the work rules recognizes implied renewal only where neither party gives any notice, whereas the employer, one month prior to expiration, delivered a notice of contract expiration clearly indicating its intention to refuse renewal. Furthermore, only three employees were found on the workplace’s health insurance enrollee list as having worked for more than two years, making it difficult to find any practice of conversion to indefinite-term employment or long-term renewal. In addition, in the open recruitment process, five people applied and four were interviewed, and substantive evaluations of the applicants were conducted, so this was a genuine new selection process rather than a mere formality. In light of the above, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that a relationship of trust regarding renewal of the employment contract had been formed, and determined that the employee did not have an expectation of renewal. Because the expectation of renewal itself was denied, the Commission held that there was no need to proceed to the next step of examining whether there was a reasonable ground for the refusal to renew. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) You should be aware that the mere presence in an employment contract or work rules of wording such as “grounds for exclusion from re‑contracting” or “implied renewal” does not automatically give rise to an expectation of renewal sufficient to support a remedy for unfair dismissal. It is important to secure, in advance, evidence that you can use to prove “substantive practices and circumstances giving rise to trust,” such as whether there have actually been repeated renewals over a long period, whether a majority of comparable employees have remained long-term or been converted to indefinite-term contracts, and whether re‑contracting has in practice been carried out as a matter of routine. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) In contracts with fixed-term employees, you should clearly stipulate in the employment contract and work rules the contract period, the possibility of re‑contracting, grounds for exclusion from renewal, and whether implied renewal is recognized. In addition, as in this Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission decision, it is a key point in preventing disputes over unfair dismissal and unfair refusal to renew that you give written notice of expiration at a reasonable time, such as one month before the end of the contract, and, if re‑hiring is necessary, conduct a substantive evaluation through a separate open recruitment process. In this type of case, you should seek assistance from a specialized labor law firm such as Labor Law Firm Law&, accurately understand the legal principles relating to unfair dismissal and expectations of renewal, and systematically organize the evidence and facts from the early stages of the case. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that no relationship of trust regarding re‑contracting had been formed between the parties, and therefore the employee could not be recognized as having an expectation of renewal of the employment contract. 3. Gist of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The clause in the employment contract setting out grounds for exclusion from re‑contracting does not mean that renewal is guaranteed, and Article 13(2) of the work rules recognizes implied renewal only where neither party gives notice of termination. In this case, the employer delivered a notice of contract expiration one month before the end of the term, thereby clearly expressing its intention to terminate the employment contract, so the requirements for implied renewal were not met. In addition, a review of the workplace’s health insurance enrollee list showed that only three employees had worked for more than two years, so no practice of conversion to indefinite-term employment could be confirmed. In the open recruitment process, five people applied, four were interviewed, and substantive evaluations of the applicants were conducted, so it could not be found that a relationship of trust regarding renewal of the employment contract had been formed, and the employee could not be recognized as having an expectation of renewal of the employment contract. Therefore, there was no need to further examine whether there was a reasonable ground for the refusal to renew. [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Interest in Remedy · Refusal to Re‑Employ (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Expectation of Succession of Employment (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)”’ - ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning “Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)”’ [Tags] Unfair dismissal, non-existence of expectation of renewal (open recruitment · absence of practice of conversion to indefinite-term contracts), refusal to renew fixed-term contract, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, labor law firm in Samseong-dong, labor law firm near Samseong Station, labor law firm in Gangnam ※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Resignation · Termination by Agreement (Request for Voluntary Resignation Due to Managerial Necessity)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions related to non-existence of expectation of renewal (open recruitment · absence of practice of conversion to indefinite-term contracts) can be found in the “List of Decisions Related to Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Open Recruitment · Absence of Practice of Conversion to Indefinite-Term Contracts).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article