[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “refusal of regular employment during a probationary period (absence of evaluation score criteria).” Decision date: 2026-07-31 · Decision body: Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해560 Key issue summary: A. Whether there is any remedial interest in the unfair dismissal claim – Since the employer did not provide legitimate monetary compensation equal to or exceeding the amount of wages, it cannot be held that the remedial interest in a monetary compensation order has been extinguished. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerned whether refusal to grant regular employment to an employee working during a probationary period constituted unfair dismissal, as examined by the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission. The employee filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the refusal of regular employment amounted to unfair dismissal, and, choosing monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, contested the matter with the assistance of Labor Law Firm Law&. The Labor Relations Commission comprehensively examined the existence of remedial interest in the dismissal, whether the employment relationship fell under a probationary contract, the legitimacy of the refusal of regular employment, and whether to grant a monetary compensation order and in what amount. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is: “Where an employer refuses to grant regular employment to an employee under a probationary contract but fails to notify in writing specific and substantive reasons for refusal sufficient for the employee to understand and respond to the grounds for refusal, does such refusal constitute unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The panel in this case found that it was difficult to regard the employer as having paid the employee legitimate monetary compensation equal to or exceeding the amount of wages; that the employment contract specified that, where the employee was found suitable for the job, he or she would be hired as a regular employee, indicating that the employee was in a probationary contract period; and that even under a probationary system, Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act (requiring just cause for dismissal) and Article 27 (requiring written notice of reasons for dismissal) apply to dismissals or refusals of regular employment. In light of this, the panel held that, in the absence of any clear provision on the score required for regular employment, the employer’s notification of the reason for refusal of regular employment merely by the formulaic phrase “you did not reach the score required for regular employment” amounted only to an abstract notice that prevented the employee from specifically understanding the content and problems of the evaluation of his or her job suitability. The panel determined that the dismissal measure in this case (refusal of regular employment) failed to satisfy the requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act for written notice of specific and substantive reasons for dismissal (refusal of regular employment), and was therefore procedurally unlawful and constituted unfair dismissal. Accordingly, it found no further need to examine the substantive legitimacy of the reasons for refusal of regular employment (i.e., whether the evaluation of ability and suitability was reasonable). In addition, since the employee sought monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and there was no evidence that the employer had already paid monetary compensation equal to or exceeding the amount of wages such that the remedial interest would be extinguished, the panel found it appropriate to grant a monetary compensation order and determined that the proper amount of monetary compensation was KRW 9,145,110. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Employees should bear in mind that, even if their contract is labeled as “probationary” or “training,” dismissal or refusal of regular employment during the probationary period constitutes dismissal. If such dismissal or refusal lacks just cause and written notice of reasons, it can be challenged as unfair dismissal. In particular, where refusal of regular employment is notified only with abstract wording such as “insufficient score,” if there is no written notice of dismissal stating specific and substantive reasons, you may consider filing an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission based on procedural defects. Furthermore, if you do not wish to be reinstated, you may utilize the monetary compensation order system under the Labor Standards Act to seek compensation equal to or exceeding the amount of wages from the date of dismissal to the date of decision. You should consult with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law& regarding this possibility. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, refusal of regular employment for probationary or trainee employees also constitutes dismissal. Therefore, instead of merely notifying the outcome that “conversion to regular employment is not possible,” you must be sure to specify concrete and substantive reasons in writing in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. If you rely only on abstract expressions such as “insufficient evaluation score” or “lack of job suitability,” there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find unfair dismissal on the ground of procedural illegality. Accordingly, employers should clearly set out in advance, in personnel regulations or similar documents, the criteria and scoring for probationary evaluations, the passing score, and the content of each evaluation item. When actually refusing regular employment, you should have procedures in place to provide written notice specifying in what respects the employee fell short under those criteria. In addition, in the event of an unfair dismissal dispute, it is advisable to understand accurately the structure of the monetary compensation order system and the legal doctrine of remedial interest, and to establish a response strategy from the outset with advice from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History A case in which it was held to be unfair dismissal because it could not be found that specific and substantive reasons for refusal of regular employment had been notified in writing in a manner that would allow the employee to understand and respond to the reasons for refusal. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning A. Whether there is remedial interest in the dismissal Since the employer did not provide legitimate monetary compensation equal to or exceeding the amount of wages, it cannot be held that the remedial interest in a monetary compensation order has been extinguished. B. Whether the employee was in a probationary contract period Because the employment contract stated that, where the employee was found suitable for the job, he or she could be hired as a regular employee, it is determined that the employee was in a probationary contract period for the purpose of deciding whether to hire the employee formally. C. Whether the refusal of regular employment was legitimate (in terms of reasons and procedure) Although there was no provision regarding the score required for regular employment, the employer notified the employee of the reason for refusal of regular employment by stating that “regular employment is refused because you did not reach the score required for regular employment.” Therefore, it cannot be regarded that specific and substantive reasons for refusal were notified in writing, and the procedure for refusal of regular employment is unlawful. Accordingly, since the procedure for refusal of regular employment is unlawful, there is no need to further examine the legitimacy of the reasons for refusal of regular employment. D. Whether to grant the application for a monetary compensation order and the amount Since the employee seeks monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, it is appropriate to grant the application for a monetary compensation order, and it is determined that the proper amount of monetary compensation is KRW 9,145,110. [See More Related Precedents] - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Remedial Interest · Refusal of Reemployment (Post-Retirement Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Business Necessity (Reassignment of Cleaning Staff)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expectation of Employment Succession (Competitive Bidding for Logistics Center)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, refusal of regular employment during probation (absence of evaluation score criteria), probationary dismissal, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Specifying Date of Resignation)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of precedents concerning refusal of regular employment during probation (absence of evaluation score criteria) can be viewed together in the “List of Precedents Concerning Refusal of Regular Employment During Probation (Absence of Evaluation Score Criteria).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article