One Law Partners, LLC represented a public institution in a lawsuit brought by a former executive seeking confirmation of invalid dismissal and payment of remuneration, alleging that the institution’s notice terminating his duties following the expiration of his term constituted an unlawful dismissal. By demonstrating that the executive’s continued performance of duties after the expiration of his term did not amount to an implied reappointment and that the notice of termination was not a dismissal, One Law Partners, LLC secured complete victories at both the trial and appellate levels.

 

1. Overview of the Case

The client, a public institution, had an executive who was initially appointed and subsequently reappointed for one additional term. After the expiration of the reappointment term, the executive continued to perform his existing duties until a successor was appointed.

The client determined that the executive’s term had already expired and, in [Month] 2025, notified him that his duties would terminate. The following day, the institution appointed another employee to the headquarters director position previously held by the executive.

The former executive argued that an implied reappointment agreement had been formed because he had continued working for more than two and a half years after the expiration of his term and because the institution had internally communicated to the supervising ministry the need for his reappointment.

He further asserted that the notice terminating his duties constituted an unfair dismissal lacking proper grounds and procedures and filed suit seeking confirmation that the dismissal was invalid, along with payment of unpaid remuneration and future compensation.

One Law Partners, LLC represented the public institution and defended the case by focusing on the legal status of public institution executives, the effect of the expiration of a term of office, the requirements for reappointment decisions, and the legal nature of the notice terminating the executive’s duties.


2. Key Issues

First, the key issue was whether the executive’s continued performance of duties after the expiration of his term could be regarded as an implied reappointment.

The former executive argued that an implied reappointment had occurred because he continued performing his duties for more than two and a half years after his term expired and because opinions concerning the necessity of his reappointment had been communicated to the supervising ministry.

The question therefore arose whether reappointment of a public institution executive requires a new decision by the appointing authority and whether continued performance of duties or internal expressions of opinion alone could give rise to the legal effect of reappointment.

Second, the issue was whether the notice terminating duties upon expiration of the executive’s term constituted a removal or dismissal.

Depending on whether the legal relationship between a public institution and its executive was characterized as an employment relationship or a mandate relationship, the effect of the expiration of the term and the legal nature of the notice terminating duties could differ.

In particular, the central question was whether the right to continue performing duties after expiration of the term signified the continuation of executive status, and whether the notice of termination constituted a new act of removal or merely a notice confirming the legal consequences of the already expired term.

Third, the issue was whether the executive’s authority to perform duties could terminate even in the absence of the appointment of a successor executive.

The former executive argued that any successor must also possess executive status. However, the institution’s regulations permitted the relevant headquarters director position to be held by a general employee.

Accordingly, issues arose concerning the purpose of the applicable laws and articles of incorporation governing succession appointments, the necessity of preventing operational disruptions, and the permissible scope of continuing authority for an executive whose term had expired.


3. Key Response Strategy

One Law Partners, LLC analyzed the legal status of public institution executives and the effect of the expiration of their terms based on the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, the client’s articles of incorporation, and relevant judicial precedents.

The firm first emphasized that the relationship between a public institution and its executive is a mandate relationship rather than an employment contract and that the mandate relationship generally terminates upon the expiration of the executive’s term.

The firm further argued that an executive’s continued performance of duties after the expiration of the term serves merely as a temporary measure to prevent operational disruption until a successor is appointed and does not constitute an extension of executive status or the formation of a new reappointment agreement.

In particular, the firm relied on the fact that, whenever the institution had previously reappointed executives, it had done so through explicit personnel appointment orders, whereas no new reappointment decision or personnel order had been issued with respect to the former executive. On this basis, the firm challenged the validity of the implied reappointment claim.

The firm also explained that the communication to the supervising ministry regarding the need for reappointment was merely part of an internal consultation process aimed at reviewing whether reappointment should occur and could not be regarded as an official reappointment decision by the appointing authority.

With respect to the legal nature of the notice terminating duties, One Law Partners, LLC argued that the notice was merely a declaratory communication confirming that the executive had already lost his position due to the expiration of his term and therefore could not be characterized as a new removal or dismissal.

The firm further emphasized that the authority of an executive to continue performing duties after the expiration of a term is limited and temporary in nature and exists solely to prevent operational gaps. Under the institution’s organizational regulations, the headquarters director position could be performed by either an executive or a general employee, and a successor had in fact been appointed to perform the duties without interruption. Accordingly, the firm argued that the former executive had no continuing right to perform duties and no entitlement to remuneration.

As a result, the trial court held that no implied reappointment had occurred after the expiration of the executive’s term and that the notice terminating duties did not constitute a removal or dismissal. The court therefore dismissed all of the former executive’s claims.

When the former executive appealed, One Law Partners, LLC further reinforced its arguments concerning the nature of the legal relationship, the requirements for reappointment, the appointment of a successor, and the absence of any entitlement to remuneration.

The appellate court likewise upheld the trial court’s conclusions, finding that implied reappointment of a public institution executive was inconsistent with the purpose and structure of the relevant laws and articles of incorporation and that any authority to continue performing duties after expiration of a term should be recognized only to the limited extent necessary to prevent operational disruption.

Accordingly, the appellate court dismissed the former executive’s appeal, and One Law Partners, LLC secured a complete victory at both the trial and appellate levels.


4. Significance of the Case

This case confirms that an executive’s continued performance of duties following the expiration of a term at a public institution does not automatically constitute an implied reappointment or continuation of executive status.

In particular, the case clarifies that the legal status of public institution executives is based on a mandate relationship distinct from that of ordinary employees and that reappointment requires a decision by the appointing authority in accordance with applicable laws and the institution’s articles of incorporation.

The decision is also significant because it recognizes that the authority to continue performing duties after the expiration of a term and before the appointment of a successor is merely a temporary measure necessary for the normal operation of a public institution and cannot be interpreted as conferring a continuing right to office or remuneration upon the executive.

One Law Partners, LLC comprehensively analyzed the laws governing public institutions, internal regulations, and judicial precedents concerning the appointment and reappointment of executives and systematically demonstrated both the legality of the notice terminating duties and the absence of any right to remuneration. Through these efforts, the firm secured complete victories at both the trial and appellate levels in the action seeking confirmation of invalid dismissal and remuneration, thereby protecting the client’s legitimate personnel management authority and legal interests.

-
Ok-Ja Jeong, Attorney | ojjeong@onelawpartners.com
Dong-Il Seok, Attorney | diseok@onelawpartners.com
-
Public Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com