This case concerns an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee fully prevailed (all claims upheld) on the issue of “defect in written notice (expiry of probationary period).” [Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed (all claims upheld) on the issue of “defect in written notice (expiry of probationary period).” Adjudicating body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae640 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal 2026-09-08 · Outcome: All claims upheld Summary of key issues: A. Whether the employee was a probationary employee It was held that the employee fell under the category of a probationary employee, having entered into a one‑year fixed‑term employment contract under which a portion of the term was designated as a probationary period. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer notified an employee, who had entered into a one‑year fixed‑term employment contract, that the employment relationship would be terminated on the ground that the probationary period had expired. The employee then filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal together with a request for a monetary compensation order, and the case was heard by the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Commission focused its review on: (i) whether the employee qualified as a probationary employee; (ii) whether the notice of termination on the ground of expiry of the probationary period constituted a dismissal; and (iii) the lawfulness of the dismissal procedure and the monetary compensation order. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issues in this case were: “Where an employee has a one‑year fixed‑term contract and a portion of that term is designated as a probationary period, does a notice of termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiry of the probationary period constitute a dismissal; and if it is a dismissal, does it amount to an unfair dismissal due to a violation of the written notice requirement under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act?” In addition, the case raised the question: “Where the employee prefers monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, under what standards may the Labor Relations Commission accept and calculate a monetary compensation order?” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision The adjudicating panel in this case regarded the employee as a probationary employee, taking into account that the employee had entered into a one‑year employment contract and designated a portion of that term as a probationary period, and that a probationary period is a stage for assessing the employee’s suitability prior to formal employment. However, the panel found that the employer’s notice of termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiry of the probationary period, regardless of its form, constituted a dismissal because the employer unilaterally terminated the employment relationship against the employee’s will; that the employer failed to provide written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, thereby violating Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; and that the employee had expressly requested monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, thereby satisfying the requirements for a monetary compensation order. In light of these factors, the panel held that the dismissal in this case constituted an unfair dismissal due to procedural defects, and that the application for a monetary compensation order should be granted. The panel further held that the amount of monetary compensation should be calculated on the basis of the amount of wages corresponding to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision (146 days), and that, in line with Commission practice and case law, the amount should be determined by comprehensively considering the degree of unfairness of the dismissal, any interim earnings, and the form of the employment contract. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even if the employer labels the action as a notice of expiry of the probationary period, where the employer unilaterally ends the employment relationship, it constitutes a dismissal regardless of its name and is therefore subject to the protections of Articles 23 and 27 of the Labor Standards Act. In particular, if you have not received a written document stating the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, you may file an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission on the ground of procedural defects, even as a probationary employee. If you do not wish to be reinstated to your original position, you should also consider, as a strategic option in the remedy process, requesting a monetary compensation order instead of reinstatement. Furthermore, even if you are employed under a fixed‑term contract, if you are dismissed during that term on the ground of the probationary period, you may claim monetary compensation (or an amount equivalent to wages) based on the amount of wages corresponding to the period from the date of dismissal to the date of the decision. It is therefore important to keep careful records of basic data such as the date of dismissal, the date of the decision, and your wage level. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) Even when terminating an employment relationship during the probationary period or on the ground of expiry of the probationary period, such termination in principle constitutes a dismissal. Accordingly, you must comply with the obligation to provide written notice specifying the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal. Although case law recognizes that a broader range of termination is permissible for probationary employees than for regular employees, this does not in itself exempt employers from the written notice requirement. If the procedure is violated, the termination may be found to be an unfair dismissal, which can lead to a monetary compensation order, enforcement fines, and even criminal liability. When setting a probationary period, it is advisable to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and employment contracts the length of the probationary period and the evaluation criteria, and to retain evaluation materials from the end of the probationary period. Doing so makes it easier to have the termination recognized as a legitimate exercise of managerial authority. In cases where a monetary compensation order is anticipated, it is helpful for reducing dispute risk to prepare in advance documents that affect the calculation of the compensation amount, such as the employee’s interim earnings after the dismissal and details of wage increases under collective agreements or rules of employment. Finally, conclusions regarding unfair dismissal, probationary periods, collective redundancies, and other personnel and labor matters can vary greatly depending on the specific facts of each case. Accordingly, when similar issues arise, you should consult sufficiently and at an early stage with a specialized institution well‑versed in Labor Relations Commission practice and case law, such as Labor Law Firm Law&. 2. Matters Adjudicated A. Case Overview and Procedural History A. Whether the employee was a probationary employee It was held that the employee fell under the category of a probationary employee, having entered into a one‑year fixed‑term employment contract under which a portion of the term was designated as a probationary period. B. Lawfulness of the termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiry of the probationary period The employer’s notice of termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiry of the probationary period constituted a dismissal; however, because the employer failed to provide written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, it amounted to an unfair dismissal in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order Since the employee requested monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, the application should be accepted. The amount of the monetary compensation order should be based on the amount of wages corresponding to the 146‑day period from the employee’s [date of dismissal] to the date of the decision … 3. Summary of Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Decision A. Whether the employee was a probationary employee It was held that the employee fell under the category of a probationary employee, having entered into a one‑year fixed‑term employment contract under which a portion of the term was designated as a probationary period. B. Lawfulness of the termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiry of the probationary period The employer’s notice of termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiry of the probationary period constituted a dismissal; however, because the employer failed to provide written notice of the reason for dismissal and the timing of dismissal, it amounted to an unfair dismissal in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order Since the employee requested monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, the application should be accepted. The amount of the monetary compensation order should be based on the amount of wages corresponding to the 146‑day period from the employee’s [date of dismissal] to the date of the decision … / [See More Related Decisions] - ‘Failure to Satisfy Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Expression of Intention to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision - ‘Dismissal (Non‑appearance at Hearing)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision – Date of Decision: – Case Number: Dismissed [Tags] Unfair dismissal, defect in written notice (expiry of probationary period), 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 Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ You can view the previous article, “‘Unauthorized Absence·Early Closure of Business (Repeated Over a Long Period)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision,” in a new window. ※ You can view the list of decisions related to defect in written notice (expiry of probationary period) at “List of Decisions Related to Defect in Written Notice (Expiry of Probationary Period).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article