Corporate trends / Performance record
Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning “Probationary Dismissal (Refusal to Hire Intern as Regular Employee)” (Unfair Dismissal 572)
- Date2026/07/25 04:22
- Read 12
[Case Information]
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “probationary dismissal (refusal to hire an intern as a regular employee).”
Adjudicating body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae253 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-22 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the relationship constituted probationary employment: Although the parties titled their agreement an “internship contract,” in substance it constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Existence of a dismissal: The employment relationship between the parties was terminated unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will, and therefore the refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee constituted a dismissal.
C. Justifiability of the dismissal: The refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee lacked objective and reasonable grounds that could be deemed socially acceptable, and the employer failed to provide written notice of specific and substantive reasons for the refusal, resulting in procedural defects and rendering the dismissal unfair.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had been working under the title of “intern” failed to be hired as a regular employee and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming unfair dismissal. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the intern contract was substantively a probationary employment contract, whether the refusal to hire as a regular employee constituted a dismissal, and, if so, whether that dismissal was justified.
The employee argued that the refusal to hire as a regular employee was an unfair dismissal because there were no objective grounds for the decision and no written notice was provided. The employer contended that the employment relationship had simply ended naturally upon expiration of the internship contract.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the employer’s refusal to hire, as a regular employee, a worker who had formally entered into an “internship contract” constitutes an unfair dismissal, and in particular, where that internship contract is in substance a probationary employment relationship, whether the refusal to hire qualifies as a dismissal that satisfies the requirement of just cause and lawful procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel found that, although the employment contract was titled an “internship contract,” in substance it was structured on the premise of regular employment, with a fixed period during which the employer would evaluate the employee’s character, ability, and suitability, and that the employee provided labor under the employer’s direction and supervision even during the internship period.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the relationship was in substance a probationary employment relationship.
It further held that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by the employer’s unilateral refusal to hire as a regular employee, against the employee’s will. Therefore, the relationship did not end automatically by expiration of a fixed term, but instead constituted a dismissal.
The Commission also held that a refusal to hire a probationary employee as a regular employee during or at the end of the probationary period is subject to the restrictions on dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. Even though a somewhat more lenient standard applies than for ordinary dismissals, in this case there were no objective and reasonable grounds for refusal to hire that could be regarded as socially acceptable.
In addition, the employer failed to comply with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by not providing written notice specifying concrete and substantive reasons and the timing of the refusal to hire, resulting in procedural defects.
On these grounds, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case lacked justification both on the merits and procedurally, and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if a contract is labeled “intern” or “probationary,” it may in substance be evaluated as a probationary employment relationship premised on eventual regular employment. In such cases, a refusal to hire as a regular employee may be subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Furthermore, if the employer refuses to hire as a regular employee without stating specific reasons and merely cites “company circumstances” or “insufficient evaluation results,” the employee should carefully check not only the objectivity and reasonableness of the grounds for dismissal but also whether written notice was provided.
Upon receiving notice of refusal to hire as a regular employee, it is important to promptly secure emails, text messages, records of meetings at the time of notification, and performance evaluation materials, as this will make it easier to contest unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating internship, probationary, or trial employment systems, it is necessary from the recruitment stage to clearly design whether the period is a probationary period premised on regular employment or a simple fixed-term internship, and to specify in the rules of employment, contracts, and explanatory materials the purpose of the system and the evaluation criteria in concrete terms.
If the employer intends to refuse regular employment at the end of the probationary period, then, even though the nature of probationary employment allows somewhat broader grounds than ordinary dismissal, at a minimum the employer should keep records of objective and reasonable grounds such as specific job incompetence or attitude problems, and must provide written notice of the reasons and timing pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
If an internship or probationary system is operated as if it were an “automatic termination upon expiration of the period” while in reality being used as a discretionary dismissal tool by the employer, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find an unfair dismissal.
This precedent of the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates that refusal to hire an intern or probationary employee as a regular employee can be evaluated as a dismissal, and that, by obtaining assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, employers should properly design probationary systems and dismissal procedures in advance to prevent disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the relationship constituted probationary employment
Although the employment contract between the parties was titled an “internship contract,” in substance it constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Existence of a dismissal
The employment relationship between the parties was terminated unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will; therefore, the refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee constituted a dismissal.
C. Justifiability of the dismissal
The refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee lacked objective and reasonable grounds that could be deemed socially acceptable, and the employer failed to provide the employee with written notice of specific and substantive reasons for the refusal to hire, resulting in procedural defects and rendering the dismissal unfair.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the relationship constituted probationary employment
Although the employment contract between the parties was titled an “internship contract,” in substance it constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Existence of a dismissal
The employment relationship between the parties was terminated unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will; therefore, the refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee constituted a dismissal.
C. Justifiability of the dismissal
The refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee lacked objective and reasonable grounds that could be deemed socially acceptable, and the employer failed to provide the employee with written notice of specific and substantive reasons for the refusal to hire, resulting in procedural defects and rendering the dismissal unfair.
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Standing to Sue (Outsourcing to a Subcontractor)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Abuse of Discretion (Protective Measures Against Workplace Bullying)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (refusal to hire intern as regular employee), probationary dismissal, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Abuse of Discretion (Protective Measures Against Workplace Bullying)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (refusal to hire intern as regular employee) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Probationary Dismissal (Refusal to Hire Intern as Regular Employee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “probationary dismissal (refusal to hire an intern as a regular employee).”
Adjudicating body: Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission 2026Buhae253 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
2026-05-22 · Outcome: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Summary of key issues:
A. Whether the relationship constituted probationary employment: Although the parties titled their agreement an “internship contract,” in substance it constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Existence of a dismissal: The employment relationship between the parties was terminated unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will, and therefore the refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee constituted a dismissal.
C. Justifiability of the dismissal: The refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee lacked objective and reasonable grounds that could be deemed socially acceptable, and the employer failed to provide written notice of specific and substantive reasons for the refusal, resulting in procedural defects and rendering the dismissal unfair.
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, an employee who had been working under the title of “intern” failed to be hired as a regular employee and applied to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy, claiming unfair dismissal. The Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its review on whether the intern contract was substantively a probationary employment contract, whether the refusal to hire as a regular employee constituted a dismissal, and, if so, whether that dismissal was justified.
The employee argued that the refusal to hire as a regular employee was an unfair dismissal because there were no objective grounds for the decision and no written notice was provided. The employer contended that the employment relationship had simply ended naturally upon expiration of the internship contract.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is whether the employer’s refusal to hire, as a regular employee, a worker who had formally entered into an “internship contract” constitutes an unfair dismissal, and in particular, where that internship contract is in substance a probationary employment relationship, whether the refusal to hire qualifies as a dismissal that satisfies the requirement of just cause and lawful procedure.
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The adjudicating panel found that, although the employment contract was titled an “internship contract,” in substance it was structured on the premise of regular employment, with a fixed period during which the employer would evaluate the employee’s character, ability, and suitability, and that the employee provided labor under the employer’s direction and supervision even during the internship period.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the relationship was in substance a probationary employment relationship.
It further held that the employment relationship between the parties was terminated by the employer’s unilateral refusal to hire as a regular employee, against the employee’s will. Therefore, the relationship did not end automatically by expiration of a fixed term, but instead constituted a dismissal.
The Commission also held that a refusal to hire a probationary employee as a regular employee during or at the end of the probationary period is subject to the restrictions on dismissal under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act. Even though a somewhat more lenient standard applies than for ordinary dismissals, in this case there were no objective and reasonable grounds for refusal to hire that could be regarded as socially acceptable.
In addition, the employer failed to comply with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by not providing written notice specifying concrete and substantive reasons and the timing of the refusal to hire, resulting in procedural defects.
On these grounds, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case lacked justification both on the merits and procedurally, and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
From the employee’s perspective, even if a contract is labeled “intern” or “probationary,” it may in substance be evaluated as a probationary employment relationship premised on eventual regular employment. In such cases, a refusal to hire as a regular employee may be subject to an application for remedy for unfair dismissal.
Furthermore, if the employer refuses to hire as a regular employee without stating specific reasons and merely cites “company circumstances” or “insufficient evaluation results,” the employee should carefully check not only the objectivity and reasonableness of the grounds for dismissal but also whether written notice was provided.
Upon receiving notice of refusal to hire as a regular employee, it is important to promptly secure emails, text messages, records of meetings at the time of notification, and performance evaluation materials, as this will make it easier to contest unfair dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s perspective, when operating internship, probationary, or trial employment systems, it is necessary from the recruitment stage to clearly design whether the period is a probationary period premised on regular employment or a simple fixed-term internship, and to specify in the rules of employment, contracts, and explanatory materials the purpose of the system and the evaluation criteria in concrete terms.
If the employer intends to refuse regular employment at the end of the probationary period, then, even though the nature of probationary employment allows somewhat broader grounds than ordinary dismissal, at a minimum the employer should keep records of objective and reasonable grounds such as specific job incompetence or attitude problems, and must provide written notice of the reasons and timing pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.
If an internship or probationary system is operated as if it were an “automatic termination upon expiration of the period” while in reality being used as a discretionary dismissal tool by the employer, there is a high risk that the Labor Relations Commission will find an unfair dismissal.
This precedent of the Chungnam Regional Labor Relations Commission clearly illustrates that refusal to hire an intern or probationary employee as a regular employee can be evaluated as a dismissal, and that, by obtaining assistance from experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, employers should properly design probationary systems and dismissal procedures in advance to prevent disputes.
2. Matters Adjudicated
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
A. Whether the relationship constituted probationary employment
Although the employment contract between the parties was titled an “internship contract,” in substance it constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Existence of a dismissal
The employment relationship between the parties was terminated unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will; therefore, the refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee constituted a dismissal.
C. Justifiability of the dismissal
The refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee lacked objective and reasonable grounds that could be deemed socially acceptable, and the employer failed to provide the employee with written notice of specific and substantive reasons for the refusal to hire, resulting in procedural defects and rendering the dismissal unfair.
3. Summary of Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
A. Whether the relationship constituted probationary employment
Although the employment contract between the parties was titled an “internship contract,” in substance it constituted a probationary employment contract.
B. Existence of a dismissal
The employment relationship between the parties was terminated unilaterally by the employer against the employee’s will; therefore, the refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee constituted a dismissal.
C. Justifiability of the dismissal
The refusal to hire the employee as a regular employee lacked objective and reasonable grounds that could be deemed socially acceptable, and the employer failed to provide the employee with written notice of specific and substantive reasons for the refusal to hire, resulting in procedural defects and rendering the dismissal unfair.
[See More Related Precedents]
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Standing to Sue (Outsourcing to a Subcontractor)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Abuse of Discretion (Protective Measures Against Workplace Bullying)’”
- “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark Made by Phone)’”
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, probationary dismissal (refusal to hire intern as regular employee), probationary dismissal, 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 Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, “Unfair Dismissal Precedent Concerning ‘Abuse of Discretion (Protective Measures Against Workplace Bullying)’,” in a new window.
※ The list of precedents related to probationary dismissal (refusal to hire intern as regular employee) can be viewed together at “List of Precedents Related to Probationary Dismissal (Refusal to Hire Intern as Regular Employee).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
