Led Organization to No. 1 in Management Evaluation, Yet Got "Zero Performance Pay" ... Court: Lowest Rating Unlawful

Court: "No connection between detailed evaluation and lowest rating"
Ministry's stated grounds for the evaluation also rejected

A court has ruled that it was unlawful to give the director of the Korea Post Office, who led an organization ranked first in a management evaluation, the lowest performance rating and withhold his performance pay.

According to legal sources on November 9, the Seoul Administrative Court's Eighth Administrative Division, presided over by Judge Yang Sunju, ruled in favor of A, a former director at the Korea Post Office, in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2024 performance evaluation against the Minister of Science and ICT. The court said, "Giving the plaintiff the lowest rating was an unlawful abuse and overreach of discretion," adding that "the decision to withhold performance pay based on that evaluation result was also unlawful."

Seoul Administrative Court. The Asia Business Daily DB.

In April 2025, the Ministry of Science and ICT notified A that he had received the lowest grade, C, in the 2024 performance evaluation and would not receive performance pay. The performance-based salary for a C grade is 0% of the standard amount. A filed an objection, saying that the department he led had achieved "first place in Grade 1" in the management evaluation and that he had met most of his individual targets. After receiving no relief through the objection process, grievance review, or appeal review, A filed a lawsuit, arguing that the lowest rating was unfair.

The court found that the lowest rating given to A did not reflect his actual work performance. He met or exceeded targets for most performance indicators and received either "very good" or "good" in every category of his job performance assessment. The court pointed out that "it is difficult to find a reasonable connection between the detailed evaluation results and the overall rating."

The separate grounds cited by the Ministry of Science and ICT were also not deemed sufficient to justify giving A the lowest rating. The ministry cited failure to meet targets for operating balance and postal revenue, a low rate of annual leave usage, and poor results in reducing overtime. It also raised issues concerning measures to protect a victim in a sexual assault case involving a disabled employee, changes to mail carrier interview schedules due to a golf outing, the selection of insurance manager trainees, and personnel actions. The court said that "none of these grounds meets the requirements for assigning the lowest rating set out in the relevant regulations and the ministry's own operating plan."

The court also found that A had properly followed the appeal procedure regarding the deadline for filing an appeal. The Ministry of Science and ICT argued that A had filed for an appeal review 111 days after being notified of the decision, exceeding the statutory 30-day deadline. The court ruled that "the withholding of performance pay is an adverse decision subject to appeal review, and there is no evidence that the ministry informed him of the filing deadline," adding that "the appeal review filed within 180 days of the decision was valid."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.