[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of “failure to meet probation evaluation standards (three-month extension of probationary period).” Decision Committee: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae1799 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-07-28 · Case result: Dismissed Summary of Key Issues: Where the employee failed to meet the criteria in the first performance evaluation, the employer did not immediately refuse regular employment but instead extended the probationary period by three months; during the entire probationary period, three separate evaluations were conducted and in each the employee failed to meet the employer’s prescribed standards; and the employer notified the employee in writing of the reasons for and timing of the end of the probationary period. In light of all these circumstances, the refusal of regular employment was held to be justified. / 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, an employee hired on a probationary/trial basis failed to achieve the minimum score required in a performance evaluation. The company then extended the probationary period by three months and ultimately refused to grant regular employment. The employee claimed this constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission considered the circumstances surrounding the extension of the probationary period, the repeated evaluations, and the written notice, and held that the employer’s refusal to grant regular employment was justified. Accordingly, the employee’s application for remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, where an employee on a probationary/trial basis fails to meet the minimum score in a performance evaluation, the employer’s action of extending the probationary period by three months and then refusing regular employment constitutes an unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The decision panel in this case noted that, when the employee failed to meet the criteria in the first performance evaluation, the employer did not immediately refuse regular employment but instead extended the probationary period by three months; that three evaluations were conducted over the entire trial period and, on each occasion, the employee failed to meet the standards set by the company; and that the employer notified the employee in writing of the timing of the end of the probationary period and the reasons for refusing regular employment. In light of the fact that the refusal of regular employment was made as a result of repeatedly verifying the employee’s job suitability in accordance with the purpose of the probationary/trial system; that the evaluation criteria were not merely formalities established after the fact but were actually applied in practice; and that the employer satisfied the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act with respect to the refusal of regular employment, which constitutes a dismissal, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case had objectively reasonable grounds and was socially acceptable, and therefore was not unfair. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is important to understand first that, even during a probationary/trial period, an employment contract has already been formed, and a refusal of regular employment likewise constitutes a dismissal for which an application for remedy for unfair dismissal may be filed with the Labor Relations Commission. However, because the employer’s discretion is generally recognized as broader at the probationary/trial stage than in ordinary dismissals, it is crucial to specifically collect and present circumstances—such as evaluation forms, feedback emails, and interview records—showing that the evaluation criteria were not applied objectively and consistently, or that they were merely formalities established after the fact. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s side, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and employment contracts the probationary/trial period, evaluation items, and minimum scores required for regular employment, and to operate the procedures consistently in actual evaluations, including evaluations by supervisors and higher-level managers and the method of aggregating scores. In addition, when extending the trial period, the employer should obtain the employee’s consent or, at a minimum, clearly notify the employee of the reasons and duration of the extension and the evaluation plan after the extension. When ultimately refusing regular employment, the employer should provide written notice of the specific reasons and timing in accordance with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. As this decision illustrates, not every refusal of regular employment at the probationary/trial stage is recognized as an unfair dismissal. In practice, it is essential to keep in mind that securing three key elements—“pre-established evaluation criteria,” “repeated evaluations and feedback,” and “specific written notice”—is critical to having the legitimacy of the employer’s action recognized by the Labor Relations Commission. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History In light of the following circumstances: when the employee failed to meet the criteria in the first performance evaluation, the employer did not immediately refuse regular employment but instead extended the probationary period by three months; during the trial period, three evaluations were conducted in total and, in each, the employee failed to meet the standards set by the employer; and the employer notified the employee in writing of the reasons for and timing of the end of the probationary period, the refusal of regular employment was held to be justified. 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning In light of the following circumstances: when the employee failed to meet the criteria in the first performance evaluation, the employer did not immediately refuse regular employment but instead extended the probationary period by three months; during the trial period, three evaluations were conducted in total and, in each, the employee failed to meet the standards set by the employer; and the employer notified the employee in writing of the reasons for and timing of the end of the probationary period, the refusal of regular employment was held to be justified. / [See More Related Decisions] - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Denial of Employee Status (Registered Director·Shareholder)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Non-Existence of Expectation of Renewal (Project-Based Fixed-Term Employment)’” - “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Telephone)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, failure to meet probation evaluation standards (three-month extension of probationary period), dismissal during trial period, personnel evaluation·poor performance, 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 Labor Law Firm Law&’s “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series. ※ You can view the previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Denial of Employee Status (Registered Director·Shareholder)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to failure to meet probation evaluation standards (three-month extension of probationary period) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Relating to Failure to Meet Probation Evaluation Standards (Three-Month Extension of Probationary Period).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article