[Case Information] This case is a precedent in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “written notice (expiry of probationary period).” Decision date: 2026-09-08 · Decision body: Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission · Case No.: 2026Buhae640 Summary of key issues: A. Whether the worker is a probationary employee It was held that the worker is a probationary employee who entered into a one‑year fixed‑term employment contract, part of which was designated as a probationary period. 1. Legal Implications Ⅰ. Case Overview This case is an application for remedy for unfair dismissal handled by the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The worker was hired as a probationary employee under a one‑year fixed‑term employment contract and was notified that the employment relationship would be terminated on the ground that the probationary period had expired. The worker claimed unfair dismissal on the basis that the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal had not been notified in writing, and the Labor Relations Commission ordered the employer to pay an amount equivalent to wages by issuing a monetary compensation order. This precedent provides an important standard on how the Labor Relations Commission evaluates a notice of expiry of a probationary period as a dismissal, and how it deals with violations of the written notice obligation under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. It also corresponds to a type of unfair dismissal dispute that is frequently consulted on in practice at Labor Law Firm Law&. Ⅱ. Summary of Issues The issue in this case is whether, in respect of a worker who has entered into a one‑year fixed‑term employment contract with part of that period designated as probation, a notice of termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiry of the probationary period constitutes a mere expiry of part of the contract term, or whether it constitutes a dismissal to which Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act applies, and further, whether such action taken without written notice amounts to unfair dismissal. Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings The panel in this case noted that the worker had entered into a one‑year employment contract and only part of that period was designated as a probationary period; that the employer notified the worker of the termination of the entire employment relationship on the ground of “expiry of the probationary period”; and that the notice of termination of the employment relationship was an expression of intent unilaterally made by the employer, irrespective of the worker’s intent. In light of these factors, the Commission found that the notice of expiry of the probationary period did not constitute an automatic expiry of the contract term, but rather amounted to a dismissal. In addition, the employer failed to notify the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal in writing, thereby violating Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Considering that the worker clearly sought monetary compensation instead of reinstatement to the original position, and that the amount equivalent to wages for the 146 days from the date of dismissal to the date of decision could be specified as KRW 18,222,260, the Commission held that the dismissal in this case constituted unfair dismissal and that it was appropriate to issue a monetary compensation order. Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective) Even if you are a probationary employee, where you have entered into an employment contract for a fixed period, you must be aware that a unilateral termination of the entire employment relationship under the pretext of “expiry of the probationary period” may constitute a dismissal. If the employer notifies dismissal only verbally or by text message and does not provide written notice of the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal, you may apply to the Labor Relations Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal on the ground of violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act. Furthermore, if reinstatement to your original position is realistically difficult or not desired, you should consider, as in this case, applying to the Labor Relations Commission for a monetary compensation order and seeking monetary compensation primarily for the amount equivalent to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of decision. Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s/Company’s Perspective) Even when seeking to terminate an employment relationship during the probationary period or at the time of expiry of the probationary period, you should proceed on the premise that such action may in substance constitute a dismissal if it is a unilateral termination irrespective of the worker’s intent. In particular, for fixed‑term probationary employees, you must not confuse automatic expiry of the contract term with expiry of the probationary period. Where the action constitutes a dismissal, you must comply with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by delivering a written notice specifying the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal. In addition, you should clearly stipulate in the rules of employment and employment contracts the criteria for evaluation and decision‑making during or at the end of the probationary period and the grounds for termination during probation. When actually deciding on dismissal, you should retain objective records so that you can substantiate the legitimacy of the dismissal before the Labor Relations Commission or the courts, and accordingly improve your HR and labor management systems. 2. Matters Decided A. Case Overview and Procedural History This is a case in which it was held that notifying a probationary employee, who had entered into a one‑year employment contract, of the termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiry of the probationary period constituted a dismissal, and that the dismissal was unfair because the employer failed to notify the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal in writing. 3. Gist of the Decision A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Findings A. Whether the worker is a probationary employee It is found that the worker is a probationary employee who entered into a one‑year fixed‑term employment contract and designated part of that period as a probationary period. B. Legitimacy of the termination of the employment relationship due to expiry of the probationary period The employer’s notice of termination of the employment relationship on the ground of expiry of the probationary period constitutes a dismissal. However, because the employer did not notify the reasons for dismissal and the date of dismissal in writing, it violates Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and amounts to unfair dismissal. C. Acceptance of the application for a monetary compensation order Since the worker seeks monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the original position, this request is accepted. It is deemed appropriate to determine the amount of the monetary compensation order as KRW 18,222,260, equivalent to wages for the 146‑day period from the worker’s date of dismissal to the date of decision. [See More Related Precedents] - Unfair dismissal precedent concerning “remedial interest and refusal to rehire (post‑retirement fixed‑term employment)” - Unfair dismissal precedent concerning “excessive disciplinary sanction (negligence in management/supervision)” - Unfair dismissal precedent concerning “business necessity (reassignment of cleaners)” [Tags] Unfair dismissal, written notice defect (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 one of the “Unfair Dismissal Precedents” series by Labor Law Firm Law&. ※ The previous article, “Unfair dismissal precedent concerning ‘unauthorized absence and early closure of business (repeated over a long period)’,” can be viewed in a new window. ※ The list of precedents related to written notice defects (expiry of probationary period) can be viewed together in the “List of precedents related to written notice defects (expiry of probationary period).” ※ Korean version of this case: Korean article