[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer ultimately prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “probationary contract (failure to reach 70 points in probationary evaluation).” Adjudicating body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026부해1783 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal Decision date: 2026-07-27 · Case outcome: Dismissed Summary of key issues: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case concerns an application for remedy for unfair dismissal where the employer specified a probationary period in the job posting and employment contract, obtained a written undertaking from the employee acknowledging that “if the probationary evaluation score is below 70 points, employment may be refused,” and then refused regular employment on the ground that the employee’s average probationary evaluation score was 58.6 points. The employee applied to the Labor Relations Commission for relief, claiming that the refusal of regular employment constituted unfair dismissal, while the employer argued that the refusal was a legitimate non-confirmation of regular employment under a probationary employment contract. The Labor Relations Commission examined, in light of the job posting, employment contract, written undertaking, and the circumstances of multiple performance evaluations during the probationary period, (i) whether the employment contract in this case constituted a probationary employment contract, and (ii) whether there were justifiable grounds and appropriate procedures for the refusal of regular employment. Ⅱ. Issues The issue in this case is whether, in circumstances where the job posting, employment contract, and written undertaking specified the probationary period and the criteria for refusal of regular employment, a refusal of regular employment on the ground of failing to reach the required probationary evaluation score constitutes unfair dismissal. More specifically, the key issues were: first, whether the employment contract in this case was a probationary employment contract premised on trial use prior to formal employment; second, whether the performance evaluations conducted during the probationary period were carried out objectively and reasonably rather than arbitrarily; and third, whether the refusal of regular employment on the ground that the evaluation result fell short of the regular employment criterion (70 points) satisfied the requirements for just cause for dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act and met the standard of reasonableness under social norms. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning The adjudicating panel noted that the employer specified a probationary period in the job posting and employment contract, and obtained from the employee a written undertaking to the effect that “if the performance evaluation score during the probationary period is below 70 points, employment may be refused.” In light of the general legal principles on probationary and trial employment, such an undertaking and the planned evaluation structure fall within the typical framework of a “probationary contract with a reserved right of termination,” under which the decision on formal employment is deferred. The panel also noted that relevant case law recognizes a probationary employment relationship where documents such as undertakings or application forms provide for a probationary period and an evaluation of suitability for regular employment. On this basis, the panel held that the employee’s employment relationship was not definitively established as regular employment, but rather was a probationary employment relationship under which the employee’s job suitability would be evaluated during the probationary period. The panel further found that three separate performance evaluations were conducted during the probationary period; that the evaluations were carried out repeatedly and cumulatively in accordance with the company’s personnel rules and standards; that the evaluation methods and scoring process could not readily be regarded as manifestly unreasonable or arbitrarily distorted; and that the average probationary evaluation score of 58.6 points clearly fell short of the 70-point threshold for regular employment. Accordingly, the panel concluded that there were objective and reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment based on the probationary evaluation results, and that, even in light of case law which affords a broader scope for justifying dismissal of probationary employees than for ordinary employees, it was difficult to regard the refusal as lacking reasonableness under social norms. Thus, notwithstanding the employee’s assertions, the panel held that the dismissal in this case was a legitimate refusal of regular employment under a probationary employment contract. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to recognize that the employment contract, undertakings relating to probation or trial employment, and documents explaining evaluation criteria, all executed at the hiring stage, will later serve as key materials in determining one’s legal status. Even during a probationary period, an employment contract has already been formed, and refusal of regular employment constitutes a “dismissal.” However, because dismissal of a probationary employee is generally afforded a broader scope of justification than dismissal of an ordinary employee, it is important to examine whether the evaluation procedures were objective and documented, and whether there are indications that the evaluation criteria were changed after the fact or applied arbitrarily, when assessing the existence of unfair dismissal. In addition, during the probationary or trial evaluation process, employees should keep records of their work performance, compliance with instructions, and any requests for training or guidance, in the form of emails, messenger records, or work logs. Such records can serve as substantive evidence when later challenging the fairness of the evaluation or the reasonableness of the scores, so it is advisable to develop record-keeping habits from the outset. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is necessary to clearly stipulate, in the rules of employment, job postings, employment contracts, and undertakings, the existence and length of the probationary or trial period, the evaluation items and criteria, and the possibility of refusal of regular employment, and to ensure that these matters are fully explained and disclosed to the employee at the hiring stage. During the probationary period, the employer should conduct at least two to three regular evaluations, and should document and retain evaluation forms, minutes of meetings, and feedback records, so as to prevent later allegations that the evaluations were arbitrary. Furthermore, because refusal of regular employment for a probationary employee also constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, the employer must comply with the obligation to provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal. If the rules of employment or personnel regulations prescribe separate resolution or deliberation procedures (e.g., a personnel committee or board resolution), strict adherence to such procedures is crucial for having the legitimacy of the decision recognized by the Labor Relations Commission or the courts. This decision indicates that, when utilizing probationary or trial employment systems, employers should not merely use the label “probation,” but should prepare in a way that ensures their personnel decisions will be recognized as legitimate exercises of managerial prerogative. This requires properly structured documentation that satisfies the substantive requirements of a probationary contract and the operation of a fair evaluation process. To prevent disputes before the Labor Relations Commission and to reduce unfair dismissal risks, employers are advised to review and refine their probationary and trial employment systems in cooperation with a specialized institution such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Decided a. Case Overview and Procedural History a. Whether the Employment Contract Constitutes a Probationary Employment Contract In light of the facts that the job posting and employment contract provided for a probationary period, and that the employee executed a written undertaking stating that he/she “understood that, if he/she obtained a score below 70 points according to the performance evaluation results during the probationary period, employment may be refused,” the relationship is to be regarded as a probationary employment contract. b. Whether the Refusal of Regular Employment Was Justified (Grounds and Procedure) It is difficult to view the three performance evaluations conducted during the probationary period as unfair or arbitrary; the average probationary evaluation score of 58.6 points fell short of the 70-point threshold for regular employment, so there were reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment; and, in accordance with the workplace rules, … 3. Summary of the Decision a. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning a. Whether the Employment Contract Constitutes a Probationary Employment Contract In light of the facts that the job posting and employment contract provided for a probationary period, and that the employee executed a written undertaking stating that he/she “understood that, if he/she obtained a score below 70 points according to the performance evaluation results during the probationary period, employment may be refused,” the relationship is to be regarded as a probationary employment contract. b. Whether the Refusal of Regular Employment Was Justified (Grounds and Procedure) It is difficult to view the three performance evaluations conducted during the probationary period as unfair or arbitrary; the average probationary evaluation score of 58.6 points fell short of the 70-point threshold for regular employment, so there were reasonable grounds for refusing regular employment; and, in accordance with the workplace rules, … / [See More Related Decisions] - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’” - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)’” – Decision date: – Case outcome: Initial decision upheld - “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Disciplinary Measure Level (Refusal to Submit Written Explanation · Poor Attendance)’” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, probationary contract (failure to reach 70 points in probationary evaluation), dismissal during probation, performance 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 the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Decision Concerning ‘Misunderstanding as to Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Change of Working Conditions)’,” in a new window. ※ The list of decisions related to probationary contracts (failure to reach 70 points in probationary evaluation) can be viewed together at “List of Decisions Related to Probationary Contracts (Failure to Reach 70 Points in Probationary Evaluation).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article