[Case Information] This case is a decision in which the employer prevailed (application dismissed) on the issue of a “probationary contract (failure to reach 70 points on probation evaluation).” Date of decision: 2026-07-27 · Decision-making body: Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026부해1783 Key issue summary: (a) 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview In this case, the employer hired a worker on the premise of a probationary period and, based on the results of work performance evaluations conducted during the probationary period, refused to confirm the worker as a regular employee. The worker claimed unfair dismissal and filed a relief application with the Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission focused its examination on whether a probationary employment contract (si-yong geunrogyeyak) had been formed, and on the legitimacy of the grounds and procedures for refusing regular employment. It ultimately found that the employer’s actions were justified. This case is a representative decision illustrating how the probationary/trainee system is interpreted in unfair dismissal disputes and what criteria the Labor Relations Commission applies in determining the legitimacy of a refusal to confirm regular employment. It is also a type of case that Labor Law Firm Law& frequently encounters in practice. Ⅱ. Issues in Dispute The issues in this case are “whether the setting of a probationary/si-yong period based on the job posting, employment contract, and probation pledge is valid, and whether refusal to confirm regular employment on the basis of the evaluation results during that probationary period constitutes unfair dismissal.” Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case held that a probationary employment contract (si-yong geunrogyeyak) had been formed between the parties, in light of the facts that the job posting and employment contract specified a probationary period and that the worker signed a pledge stating that ‘if the worker scores below 70 points according to the work performance evaluation results during the probationary period, employment may be refused.’ The Commission further found that the three work performance evaluations conducted during the probationary period were carried out in accordance with predetermined standards and procedures and could not readily be viewed as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable; that the average evaluation score of 58.6 points clearly fell short of the 70-point threshold for regular employment, thereby establishing a reasonable ground of insufficient job suitability; and that, in accordance with the workplace rules, the matter was reviewed by the Personnel Committee and the grounds and timing of the refusal to confirm regular employment were notified in writing. On this basis, the Commission held that the “dismissal” in this case was not an unfair dismissal but a justified refusal to confirm regular employment. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) From the employee’s perspective, it is essential to carefully check how the “probationary/si-yong period, evaluation criteria, and possibility of refusal to confirm regular employment” are described in the employment contract and various pledges signed at the time of joining the company. Since work attitude and performance during the probationary period will be recorded in objective evaluation sheets and scores, it is necessary to manage performance and attitude at the same level as regular employees, rather than assuming that “it is fine because this is only probation.” If you receive a notice of refusal to confirm regular employment, it is advisable to inspect and secure relevant materials such as evaluation sheets, evaluation criteria, and minutes of the Personnel Committee, and to examine whether the evaluation was arbitrary, whether there were any discriminatory elements, and whether the written notice is specific in its content, in order to assess whether there is an issue of unfair dismissal. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) From the employer’s perspective, it is important to clearly stipulate in the rules of employment, employment contracts, pledges, etc. the legal basis for setting a probationary/si-yong period, its duration, evaluation items, passing score, and the possibility of refusal to confirm regular employment, and to sufficiently explain these matters at the recruitment stage and obtain written consent from the worker. In addition, by breaking down evaluation items into concrete sub-items and ensuring objectivity and fairness in the evaluation—such as by having supervisors conduct repeated and cross-checking evaluations in accordance with predetermined standards—it becomes easier to have the legitimacy of the employer’s actions recognized by the Labor Relations Commission and the courts. Furthermore, since refusal to confirm regular employment upon expiry of the probationary/si-yong period constitutes a dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, if there are separate procedures prescribed in the rules of employment or personnel regulations, such as review by a Personnel Committee, those procedures must be followed. The employer must also strictly comply with the requirement to notify the grounds and timing of dismissal in writing with specificity. Having these basic arrangements in place significantly increases the employer’s ability to defend against an unfair dismissal dispute. 2. Matters Decided (a) Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that an employment contract constituted a probationary employment contract (si-yong geunrogyeyak), and that refusal to confirm regular employment based on the evaluation during the probationary period was justified because there were reasonable grounds and no procedural defects. 3. Summary of the Decision (a) Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings (1) Whether the employment contract constituted a probationary employment contract (si-yong geunrogyeyak) In light of the facts that the job posting and employment contract provided for a probationary period and that the worker signed a pledge stating that “the worker understands that if the worker scores below 70 points according to the work performance evaluation results during the probationary period, employment may be refused,” the contract falls under a probationary employment contract. (2) Whether the refusal to confirm regular employment was justified (grounds and procedures) It is difficult to view the three work performance evaluations conducted during the probationary period as unfair or arbitrary; the average probation evaluation score of 58.6 points fell short of the 70-point threshold for regular employment, so there were reasonable grounds for refusing to confirm regular employment; and, in accordance with the workplace rules, the matter was reviewed by the Personnel Committee and the grounds and timing of the refusal to confirm regular employment were notified in writing, so there were no procedural defects. [See More Related Decisions] - Decision on unfair dismissal relating to “business necessity (reassignment of cleaners)” - Decision on unfair dismissal relating to “interest in relief / refusal to re-employ (post-retirement fixed-term employment)” - Decision on unfair dismissal relating to “disciplinary severity (participation in services for another entity)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, probationary contract (failure to reach 70 points on probation 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&. ※ The previous article, “Decision on Unfair Dismissal Relating to ‘Misapprehension as to Existence of Dismissal (Consultation on Change of Working Conditions)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of decisions relating to probationary contracts (failure to reach 70 points on probation evaluation) can be found under “List of Decisions Relating to Probationary Contracts (Failure to Reach 70 Points on Probation Evaluation).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article