[해고무효확인등][공1990.12.15.(886),2398]
Whether it constitutes a ground for disciplinary action against a false person who had worked in another company as if he had worked in the company previously employed in order to conceal the fact, etc. of dismissal due to poor work performance (affirmative)
The reason why the company requires the resume or certificate stating the academic background or career while employing workers is not only to evaluate the labor ability of workers, that is, it is necessary to determine whether to employ workers through a prior personal judgment, such as the worker's intelligence and experience, degree of education, suspension of duty, and adaptation to work, so that it is necessary to determine whether to employ workers. Thus, if the company has concealed the work experience and falsely misrepresented the work experience as if the company had been employed in another company that had not been aware of the above contents, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the company would not conclude the employment contract if it was employed only by the worker's name, resume, or other important matters in the case of employment.
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)
Plaintiff
Suwon Electronic Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and three others
Seoul High Court Decision 89Na9267 delivered on October 25, 1989
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above provision of punishment under the rules of employment of the defendant company provides for the same reasons as the time of original adjudication, such as the case where a worker was employed solely on the grounds for disciplinary action, his name, resume, and other important matters. The plaintiff, before entering the defendant company, was an employee of the defendant company on March 18, 1986, to refuse to engage in remaining business with his employees by means of measures to improve working conditions, and was subject to disciplinary action on May 8, 1986 on the ground that work performance was poor, and thus, the above non-party company went into the above non-party company on May 10, 1986 for the purpose of responding to such disciplinary action, and thus, it constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act upon complaint of the above non-party company, and thus, it constitutes a violation of the employer's trust order or a violation of the employer's new employment conditions. The plaintiff is not likely to inform the plaintiff's new employment regulations of 1981.
However, the reason why the company requires the resume or certificate stating the academic background or career while employing workers is not only to evaluate the worker's ability, but also to determine whether to employ workers through a prior personal judgment such as the worker's intelligence and experience, degree of education, suspension of duty, and adaptation to work, so it is necessary to determine whether to employ workers or not (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3196, Mar. 14, 1989).
However, according to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff falsely assumes the job experience as if he had been employed in the non-party company Supjin Co., Ltd. who had been employed prior to the submission of a resume while joining the defendant company, and the fact that he was nominated as having been suspected of housing intrusion, etc., by threatening to inform the defendant company of the fact that he had been employed in the non-party company. Thus, when employing the plaintiff, it is clear in our rule of experience that the defendant company would not conclude the employment contract with the plaintiff considering the personal aspects such as the suspension of the plaintiff's duty if he had known of the above contents, and it is obvious in our rule of experience that the plaintiff would not enter into the employment contract with the plaintiff. Therefore, it shall be deemed that the preparation and submission of the important career that the plaintiff would mislead his personality judgment as above constitutes
The court below's decision that a legitimate ground for disciplinary dismissal can not be a ground for disciplinary dismissal on the ground that there is no realistic result, such as a disturbance of corporate order, even though the plaintiff falsely prepared and submitted career experience in the resume, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for disciplinary dismissal and the right of dismissal of the employer. Therefore, the argument that points this out
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)