[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of the “right to terminate during probation (erroneous reporting/misreading).” Decision body: Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae223 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-02 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of key issues: In an employment relationship during a probationary period where the right to terminate is reserved, it is sufficient that there is a reasonable ground for dismissal. In light of the employee’s instances of erroneous reporting and misreading, the employer’s dismissal (or refusal of regular employment) cannot be viewed as lacking rationality. Further, even if the dates of the erroneous reporting and misreading incidents were incorrectly stated in the dismissal notice, it is difficult to conclude that the employee failed to recognize the grounds for dismissal and was thereby unable to respond appropriately. Accordingly, the dismissal (or refusal of regular employment) is justified. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns a situation where, during the probationary period, the employer refused to grant regular employment on the grounds that the employee had repeatedly engaged in erroneous reporting and misreading in the course of performing duties. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming that this constituted unfair dismissal. The Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission assessed the legal nature of the probationary employment relationship, the employee’s attitude in performing work, and the contents of the dismissal notice to determine whether the dismissal was justified. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case are whether, in a probationary employment relationship where the right to terminate is reserved, the refusal to grant regular employment based on the employee’s repeated erroneous reporting and misreading is so lacking in rationality that it can be regarded as unfair dismissal at the Labor Relations Commission stage, and whether the fact that some of the dates of the erroneous reporting and misreading incidents were incorrectly stated in the dismissal notice constitutes a procedural defect in the dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The panel in this case held that a probationary employment relationship is an employment contract in which the right to terminate is reserved, and that the justification for dismissal is recognized within a broader scope than for ordinary dismissal. In light of the content and frequency of the employee’s erroneous reporting and misreading, the employer could not help but harbor serious doubts about the employee’s job suitability. Furthermore, even though some of the dates of the erroneous reporting and misreading incidents were incorrectly stated in the dismissal notice, the employee sufficiently understood the grounds for dismissal and was able to defend against them. In view of the purpose of the probationary system, the panel found that the dismissal in this case was based on objectively reasonable grounds and was acceptable under social norms, and therefore did not constitute unfair dismissal. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even during a probationary or training period, the statutory restrictions on dismissal under the Labor Standards Act are not completely excluded. However, repeated mistakes that are directly linked to the assessment of suitability, such as work ability and diligence, may be recognized as grounds for dismissal within a much broader scope than in the case of ordinary dismissal. In particular, for mistakes that directly affect work outcomes, such as erroneous reporting and misreading, it is important for the employee to record and be able to prove specific efforts at improvement and measures to prevent recurrence, as a means of preventing disputes. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company Perspective) From the employer’s standpoint, it is advisable to clearly inform the employee in advance of the purpose of the probationary contract and the evaluation criteria (work ability, accuracy, diligence, etc.), and to document the instances of erroneous reporting and misreading that occur during the probationary period, including specific dates, details, and impacts. In addition, the dismissal notice should specify the grounds and timing of dismissal with sufficient particularity for the employee to understand. Even where there are formal defects such as minor errors in dates, the employer should provide sufficient prior explanation and an opportunity for the employee to state his or her position so that the employee’s right to defense is not infringed. (ⓒ2026copyright. Labor Attorney Youngseob Moon, Labor Law Firm Law&. Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution are prohibited.) 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History In a probationary employment relationship where the right to terminate is reserved, it is sufficient that there is a reasonable ground for dismissal. In light of the employee’s instances of erroneous reporting and misreading, the employer’s dismissal (or refusal of regular employment) cannot be viewed as lacking rationality. Further, even if the dates of the erroneous reporting and misreading incidents were incorrectly stated in the dismissal notice, it is difficult to conclude that the employee failed to recognize the grounds for dismissal and was thereby unable to respond appropriately. Accordingly, the dismissal (or refusal of regular employment) is justified. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning In a probationary employment relationship where the right to terminate is reserved, it is sufficient that there is a reasonable ground for dismissal. In light of the employee’s instances of erroneous reporting and misreading, the employer’s dismissal (or refusal of regular employment) cannot be viewed as lacking rationality. Further, even if the dates of the erroneous reporting and misreading incidents were incorrectly stated in the dismissal notice, it is difficult to conclude that the employee failed to recognize the grounds for dismissal and was thereby unable to respond appropriately. Accordingly, the dismissal (or refusal of regular employment) is justified. / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of decision: - Case number: First-instance decision upheld - ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision [Tags] Unfair dismissal, right to terminate during probation (erroneous reporting/misreading), dismissal during probation, 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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Expression of Intent to Dismiss (Timing of Renewal Notice)’ Related Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to the right to terminate during probation (erroneous reporting/misreading) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to the Right to Terminate During Probation (Erroneous Reporting/Misreading).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article