[해고무효확인청구사건][하집1990(2),183]
Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act
Madal Dus
Samyang Traffic Corporation
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
We confirm that the Defendant’s dismissal of the Defendant against the Plaintiff on July 4, 1987 is null and void.
The court costs are assessed against the defendant.
On September 20, 1986, the plaintiff was dismissed from his office on July 4, 1987 by the defendant company as the driver of the city bus of the defendant company, and there was no dispute between the parties concerned, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 23-2, 11, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 16, Eul's evidence 17, Eul's evidence 17, Eul's evidence 17 (Request for holding a Private Meeting), Eul's minutes, and other facts that the plaintiff worked for the defendant company as the main driver of the defendant company on July 4, 1987, and the defendant's testimony on the same date as the defendant company's new driver's 10, Eul evidence 16, Eul's evidence 17 (Notification of Dismissal), Eul's meeting minutes, and the defendant's testimony on the same date as the defendant company's new driver's 19,7198.7.8
As seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not enter his former work experience in the above new transportation company at the 3rd anniversary of the fact that it was clear that the Plaintiff was dismissed by the 1st half of his employment card at the time when he entered the above work experience in the 1st half of the company (the 1st half of his previous work experience). Therefore, despite the Plaintiff’s aforementioned false work experience, the Plaintiff had faithfully worked for the Defendant company without any reason for dismissal, and the absence of the above work experience was caused by the 1st of his previous work experience in the 3th of the company (the 1st of his previous work experience in the 4th of his previous work experience) and the 1st of his previous work experience in the 1st of his previous work experience in the 3th of his previous work experience (the 1st of his previous work experience in the 1st of his previous work experience in the 3th of his previous work experience) and the 3th of his previous work experience in the 1st of his previous work experience in the 1st of his new work experience.
The reason why the employer, like the defendant, has to submit a resume stating the worker's career, etc. in employing a worker is not only for the purpose of using it as a data for evaluation of the worker's labor ability, but also for investigating it as a personal evaluation of the worker's credibility, adaptability to business order, sincerity to occupation, and settlement, etc. as well as for the purpose of using it as a data for evaluation of the worker's ability. If the plaintiff submitted a resume after entering the plaintiff's work experience in the resume, as the plaintiff was the plaintiff, it is clear that the plaintiff did not employ the plaintiff since it was clearly stated that the plaintiff's dismissal case and criminal case of the above new transport company at the above new transport company. Thus, the plaintiff's submission of the above false personal records constitutes a case where the plaintiff's employment was based on a false entry of important power under Article 13 subparagraph 6 of the above rules and it is a ground for disciplinary action only for the above reason. The defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff can not be said to be an abuse
The plaintiff asserted that the defendant did not post the above rules of employment (No. 1) at the defendant's workplace and that the above rules of employment were invalid because it violated the collective agreement (No. 3) of the defendant company. However, the witness Kim Chang-nam's testimony that the above rules of employment did not keep the above rules of employment at the defendant's workplace is not trustable, and there is no evidence to prove that the contents of the above rules of employment are invalid as it violated the above collective agreement, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Ho-hun (Presiding Judge)