Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Employee Status and Relief Interest (Agreed Termination During Probationary Period)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 318)
- Date2026/03/26 04:18
- Read 203
This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issues of “employee status and relief interest (agreed termination during probationary period).”
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision that concluded with a ruling in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application) on the issues of “employee status and relief interest (agreed termination during probationary period).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae3664 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.09 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a) –
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after an application for remedy was filed with the Labor Relations Commission in relation to the alleged unfair dismissal of a probationary employee, two questions arose: whether the applicant qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and whether any interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal remained after the dismissal.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the applicant’s status as an employee, but dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on the ground that the parties had agreed on a specific date as the end of the employment contract.
This case is an important reference in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law& because it illustrates, in the context of filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, both the criteria for determining employee status and how “dismissal during the probationary period” is distinguished from “agreed expiration of a fixed term.”
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where, after the employer has expressed an intention to dismiss a probationary employee, the parties separately agree on a specific end date for the employment contract, does the employee retain any interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal?”
More specifically, the issues were: first, whether the applicant qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act; second, whether there was an expression of intent to dismiss by the employer on 1 August 2025; and third, assuming that a subsequent agreement setting the end of the employment contract as 6 August 2025 is valid, whether there remains any interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal that would restore the employment relationship beyond that point.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel found that the employer had specified wages and working hours in the employment contract, and that, in light of the circumstances reflected in the probationary employee evaluation form and the recorded conversations, the employer exercised specific direction and supervision over the applicant. It further found that the applicant’s working hours and manner of performing work were determined in accordance with the employer’s instructions. On this basis, the panel held that the applicant qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
The panel also acknowledged that the employer had, as of 1 August 2025, expressed an intention to dismiss the applicant. However, it found that, separately from this, there existed an agreement between the employee and the employer setting the end of the employment contract as 6 August 2025, that the employment contract had in fact terminated upon expiry of that agreed term, and that, as a result, there was no longer any employment relationship that the Labor Relations Commission could restore. On these grounds, the panel held that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal lacked any substantive relief interest and therefore dismissed it.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if wages and working hours are specified in the employment contract, and there exist a probationary employee evaluation form, specific direction and supervision, and designated working hours and workplace, then employee status under the Labor Standards Act may be recognized regardless of the formal label used.
However, if, after receiving notice of dismissal, the employee signs or agrees to a separate “agreement on the contract end date,” the Labor Relations Commission may rely on that agreement to find that there is no relief interest in an unfair dismissal remedy. Accordingly, employees should respond cautiously, fully understanding the meaning and legal effect of any agreement on an end date before consenting to it.
In addition, even during the probationary period, if a dismissal is found to be unfair, the employee is in principle entitled to relief. However, where there is an agreement on expiry of the term as in this case, it may be viewed that there is no employment relationship that can actually be restored. Therefore, when preparing to contest a dismissal, it is important not only to organize the facts regarding the existence of the dismissal itself, but also to carefully set out whether there was any “agreement on the contract term/end date” and the circumstances under which such agreement was made.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even in the case of probationary employees, if wages and working hours are specified in the employment contract and the employer in fact exercises specific direction and supervision, there is a high likelihood that the individual will be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act. HR and dismissal decisions should be structured on this premise. Even when exercising the right to terminate during the probationary period, the method and timing of the notice, and the content of any subsequent agreement on the contract end date, will become key evidence in any dispute. It is therefore necessary to keep clear written records and to fulfill the duty to explain.
Furthermore, where probationary contracts are operated in the form of fixed-term contracts, an “agreement on expiry of the term” may directly affect the determination of relief interest, independently of the grounds for dismissal. Employers should therefore decide in advance, as part of their HR strategy, whether to rely on the expiry of a fixed term or to clarify the grounds for probationary dismissal and proceed under a disciplinary/ordinary dismissal framework. In doing so, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and establish a consistent system.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the applicant qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act
Because wages and working hours were specified in the employment contract, and because, in light of the probationary employee evaluation form and the recorded conversations outside the employment contract, it appears that the employer exercised specific direction and supervision over the worker, the applicant was found to be an employee.
(b) Whether a dismissal existed and whether there was any relief interest
Although it appears that the employer dismissed the worker on 1 August 2025, there was an agreement between the worker and the employer setting the end of the employment contract as 6 August 2025, and the employment contract therefore terminated. Accordingly, the Commission found that there was no relief interest.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the applicant qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act
Because wages and working hours were specified in the employment contract, and because, in light of the probationary employee evaluation form and the recorded conversations outside the employment contract, it appears that the employer exercised specific direction and supervision over the worker, the applicant was found to be an employee.
(b) Whether a dismissal existed and whether there was any relief interest
Although it appears that the employer dismissed the worker on 1 August 2025, there was an agreement between the worker and the employer setting the end of the employment contract as 6 August 2025, and the employment contract therefore terminated. Accordingly, the Commission found that there was no relief interest.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Unauthorized Absence · Noncompliance with Work Instructions)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status and relief interest (agreed termination during probationary period), others, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Unauthorized Absence · Noncompliance with Work Instructions)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to employee status and relief interest (agreed termination during probationary period) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Employee Status and Relief Interest (Agreed Termination During Probationary Period).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
This case is an unfair dismissal decision that concluded with a ruling in favor of the employer (dismissal of the application) on the issues of “employee status and relief interest (agreed termination during probationary period).”
Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, 2025Buhae3664 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2026.01.09 · Case result: Dismissed
Key issue summary: (a) –
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, after an application for remedy was filed with the Labor Relations Commission in relation to the alleged unfair dismissal of a probationary employee, two questions arose: whether the applicant qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and whether any interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal remained after the dismissal.
The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the applicant’s status as an employee, but dismissed the application for remedy for unfair dismissal on the ground that the parties had agreed on a specific date as the end of the employment contract.
This case is an important reference in the practice of Labor Law Firm Law& because it illustrates, in the context of filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission, both the criteria for determining employee status and how “dismissal during the probationary period” is distinguished from “agreed expiration of a fixed term.”
Ⅱ. Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where, after the employer has expressed an intention to dismiss a probationary employee, the parties separately agree on a specific end date for the employment contract, does the employee retain any interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal?”
More specifically, the issues were: first, whether the applicant qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act; second, whether there was an expression of intent to dismiss by the employer on 1 August 2025; and third, assuming that a subsequent agreement setting the end of the employment contract as 6 August 2025 is valid, whether there remains any interest in obtaining a remedy for unfair dismissal that would restore the employment relationship beyond that point.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel found that the employer had specified wages and working hours in the employment contract, and that, in light of the circumstances reflected in the probationary employee evaluation form and the recorded conversations, the employer exercised specific direction and supervision over the applicant. It further found that the applicant’s working hours and manner of performing work were determined in accordance with the employer’s instructions. On this basis, the panel held that the applicant qualified as an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
The panel also acknowledged that the employer had, as of 1 August 2025, expressed an intention to dismiss the applicant. However, it found that, separately from this, there existed an agreement between the employee and the employer setting the end of the employment contract as 6 August 2025, that the employment contract had in fact terminated upon expiry of that agreed term, and that, as a result, there was no longer any employment relationship that the Labor Relations Commission could restore. On these grounds, the panel held that the application for remedy for unfair dismissal lacked any substantive relief interest and therefore dismissed it.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, if wages and working hours are specified in the employment contract, and there exist a probationary employee evaluation form, specific direction and supervision, and designated working hours and workplace, then employee status under the Labor Standards Act may be recognized regardless of the formal label used.
However, if, after receiving notice of dismissal, the employee signs or agrees to a separate “agreement on the contract end date,” the Labor Relations Commission may rely on that agreement to find that there is no relief interest in an unfair dismissal remedy. Accordingly, employees should respond cautiously, fully understanding the meaning and legal effect of any agreement on an end date before consenting to it.
In addition, even during the probationary period, if a dismissal is found to be unfair, the employee is in principle entitled to relief. However, where there is an agreement on expiry of the term as in this case, it may be viewed that there is no employment relationship that can actually be restored. Therefore, when preparing to contest a dismissal, it is important not only to organize the facts regarding the existence of the dismissal itself, but also to carefully set out whether there was any “agreement on the contract term/end date” and the circumstances under which such agreement was made.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, even in the case of probationary employees, if wages and working hours are specified in the employment contract and the employer in fact exercises specific direction and supervision, there is a high likelihood that the individual will be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act. HR and dismissal decisions should be structured on this premise. Even when exercising the right to terminate during the probationary period, the method and timing of the notice, and the content of any subsequent agreement on the contract end date, will become key evidence in any dispute. It is therefore necessary to keep clear written records and to fulfill the duty to explain.
Furthermore, where probationary contracts are operated in the form of fixed-term contracts, an “agreement on expiry of the term” may directly affect the determination of relief interest, independently of the grounds for dismissal. Employers should therefore decide in advance, as part of their HR strategy, whether to rely on the expiry of a fixed term or to clarify the grounds for probationary dismissal and proceed under a disciplinary/ordinary dismissal framework. In doing so, it is advisable to consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& and establish a consistent system.
2. Matters Decided
(a) Case Overview and Procedural History
(a) Whether the applicant qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act
Because wages and working hours were specified in the employment contract, and because, in light of the probationary employee evaluation form and the recorded conversations outside the employment contract, it appears that the employer exercised specific direction and supervision over the worker, the applicant was found to be an employee.
(b) Whether a dismissal existed and whether there was any relief interest
Although it appears that the employer dismissed the worker on 1 August 2025, there was an agreement between the worker and the employer setting the end of the employment contract as 6 August 2025, and the employment contract therefore terminated. Accordingly, the Commission found that there was no relief interest.
3. Summary of the Decision
(a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
(a) Whether the applicant qualifies as an employee under the Labor Standards Act
Because wages and working hours were specified in the employment contract, and because, in light of the probationary employee evaluation form and the recorded conversations outside the employment contract, it appears that the employer exercised specific direction and supervision over the worker, the applicant was found to be an employee.
(b) Whether a dismissal existed and whether there was any relief interest
Although it appears that the employer dismissed the worker on 1 August 2025, there was an agreement between the worker and the employer setting the end of the employment contract as 6 August 2025, and the employment contract therefore terminated. Accordingly, the Commission found that there was no relief interest.
/
[See More Related Decisions]
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Unauthorized Absence · Noncompliance with Work Instructions)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Statement Made by Telephone)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case result: First-instance decision upheld
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, employee status and relief interest (agreed termination during probationary period), others, 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&.
※ The previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Relating to ‘Disciplinary Sanction Level (Unauthorized Absence · Noncompliance with Work Instructions)’,” can be viewed in a new window.
※ The list of decisions relating to employee status and relief interest (agreed termination during probationary period) can be viewed together in the “List of Decisions Relating to Employee Status and Relief Interest (Agreed Termination During Probationary Period).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
