[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “probationary evaluation (refusal to confirm employment).” Date of decision: 2026-08-11 · Decision-making body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae2278 Summary of key issues: The employer conducted an evaluation based on the items set out in the probationary evaluation form, aggregated the scores in the prescribed manner, and thereby appears to have made efforts to secure, to some extent, the objectivity, fairness, and rationality of the evaluation. As the result of that evaluation fell short of the required standard, a conclusion of non-confirmation of employment was reached, and the written statements submitted by many supervisors and co‑workers who had worked with the employee largely coincided with the evaluator’s assessment content... 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Overview of the Case In this case, the company refused to confirm the employment of an employee who was serving a probationary period, citing the results of the probationary evaluation, and the employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission for relief on the ground that this constituted unfair dismissal. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission comprehensively reviewed the employer’s evaluation method and procedure, as well as whether written notice had been given, and issued a decision in favor of the employer. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether “a refusal to confirm employment based on the results of a probationary evaluation conducted during the probationary period constitutes a legitimate personnel measure with objectively reasonable grounds and fair procedures, or whether it amounts to unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that the employer calculated the final score by aggregating the scores in the prescribed manner according to the evaluation items set out in the probationary evaluation form; that the contents of the statements by many supervisors and co‑workers were generally consistent with the evaluator’s assessment; and that, after hiring, the employer had pointed out work‑related problems to the employee and conducted interviews aimed at improvement. In light of these circumstances, the panel found it difficult to conclude that the evaluation in this case was a subjective or arbitrary assessment lacking objectivity, and held that, in view of the purpose of the probationary employment system, there were reasonable grounds for refusing to confirm employment on the basis that the evaluation result fell below the required standard. In addition, the company provided a written notice stating the grounds and timing of the refusal to confirm employment, thereby fulfilling its obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to give written notice of the reasons for dismissal. The panel also relied on case law to the effect that refusal to confirm employment of probationary employees is, by its nature, different from disciplinary action and therefore cannot readily be deemed unlawful solely because separate disciplinary procedures were not followed. On these grounds, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was not procedurally unlawful. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it should be understood that, even during a probationary period, a refusal to confirm employment—which in substance is equivalent to dismissal—is possible, but that the underlying evaluation is recognized as legitimate only when it follows objective criteria and procedures. Accordingly, it is important to regularly check any issues pointed out during the probationary period, the content of interviews, and the evaluation criteria, and, if the evaluation feels arbitrary, to proactively accumulate rebuttal materials such as contemporaneous emails, interview notes, and statements from colleagues. Upon receiving a notice of refusal to confirm employment, the employee should examine whether the reasons stated in writing are specific, whether they are consistent with the actual evaluation process, and whether any opportunity for explanation or defense was completely denied, and then promptly consider whether to file an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, in order to operate the probationary system in line with its purpose of “verifying job suitability,” it is necessary to document in advance the evaluation items, evaluation methods, and passing scores, and to notify employees of these in advance. During the evaluation, the employer should obtain statements from supervisors and co‑workers based on specific observations and keep records of interviews in which problems were pointed out and opportunities for improvement were provided, so as to support the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation. Furthermore, when refusing to confirm employment, the employer should not merely use abstract expressions such as “deemed unsuitable,” but should provide a written notice stating specific reasons and timing linked to the evaluation results, and thereby align its HR and labor‑management processes with the dismissal notice requirements under the Labor Standards Act. In disputes relating to probationary employment, practitioners should always bear in mind that the key factors determining whether there has been unfair dismissal are “the existence of reasonable and objective evaluation criteria” and “whether an actual evaluation and written notice were carried out in accordance with those criteria.” 2. Matters Decided A. Overview of the Case and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that there were objectively reasonable grounds for the refusal to confirm employment, and that, as the grounds and timing of the refusal were notified in writing, there was no procedural unlawfulness in the refusal to confirm employment. 3. Summary of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The Commission found that the employer conducted the evaluation according to the evaluation items set out in the probationary evaluation form and aggregated the scores in the prescribed manner to derive a final score, thereby appearing to have made efforts to secure, to some extent, the objectivity, fairness, and rationality of the evaluation. The evaluation result fell short of the standard, leading to a conclusion of non‑confirmation of employment, and the contents of the written statements prepared by many supervisors and on‑site co‑workers who had worked with the employee were generally consistent with the evaluator’s assessment. There were no particular circumstances suggesting that, after hiring, the employer had any reason to intentionally give a malicious evaluation of the employee. It also appeared that the employer had pointed out problems in the employee’s job performance and conducted interviews aimed at improvement. In light of these circumstances, the Commission found it difficult to conclude that the evaluation in this case was a subjective or arbitrary assessment lacking objectivity, and determined that there was no procedural unlawfulness in relation to the dismissal in this case, as the grounds and timing of the refusal to confirm employment were notified in writing. [See More Related Decisions] - “Cases on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Interest in Relief · Refusal to Rehire (Post‑Retirement Fixed‑Term Employment)’” - “Cases on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Disciplinary Severity (Participation in Services for Another Institution)’” - “Cases on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, probationary evaluation (refusal to confirm employment), 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 part of the “Unfair Dismissal Case Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Cases on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Resignation Contrary to True Intent (Provision of Resignation Form)’,” in a new window. ※ A list of decisions relating to probationary evaluation (refusal to confirm employment) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Probationary Evaluation (Refusal to Confirm Employment).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article