Contract Employee Who Claimed "Contract Extension" After Additional Appointment Failure... Court Rules "No Expectation of Extension"

A fixed-term public official who was rejected for reappointment after the expiration of the service period filed an administrative lawsuit challenging the automatic retirement disposition, but the claim was dismissed.

Seoul Administrative Court.

According to the legal community on the 20th, the Administrative Court of Seoul, Administrative Division 3 (Presiding Judge Choi Su-jin) recently ruled against plaintiff A in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the automatic retirement disposition filed against the Economic, Social and Labor Council (Gyeongsanowi) and the state.

A applied for and passed the career competitive recruitment exam according to the Gyeongsanowi professional fixed-term public official recruitment announcement in April 2022. He signed an appointment agreement to work as a professional fixed-term public official from June 20 to November 30 of the same year. Subsequently, on October 31, Gyeongsanowi informed A and other professional fixed-term public officials that their service period would expire on November 30 according to the agreement, and they would retire on December 1. It was announced that new recruitment for all professional fixed-term public officials would be conducted, and the final successful candidates were announced on December 20. A applied for the recruitment but was rejected.

A filed a petition for review with the Personnel Innovation Office's Appeal Review Committee requesting cancellation of the retirement, but after it was dismissed, he filed an administrative lawsuit. A claimed, "There was a reasonable expectation that the contract could be extended if certain conditions were met, and Gyeongsanowi had a precedent of guaranteeing a five-year term for professional fixed-term public officials."

However, the court dismissed A's claim, stating that a legitimate expectation of extension of the service period could not be recognized. The court pointed out, "Fixed-term public officials like A have their service period legally defined in exchange for receiving status protection as career public officials under relevant laws," and "It is difficult to apply the doctrine of 'expectation of contract renewal,' which is based on civil or public law employment contracts, as is." The court further stated, "The appointing authority has broad discretion regarding the extension of the term of fixed-term public officials," and "There is insufficient reason to recognize that the service period must necessarily be extended."