According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if it is found that the above employee under Article 32 subparagraph 1 of the Rules of Employment was employed with only important personal information, such as the name, age, career, and academic background of the defendant company, the court below stated the disciplinary action against the defendant company. If the plaintiff consented and entered a labor contract with the defendant company not to raise any objection to the guidelines of the defendant company, the plaintiff did not have worked in the non-party mining industry for a certain period from August 1, 1981 to December 30, 1980, which was so long as the plaintiff did not have worked in the non-party mining industry, the court below determined that the defendant would have been subject to disciplinary action against the above non-party mining company under the above rules of employment because it was no more likely that it would have worked in the non-party mining industry than that of the above non-party mining company, and that the plaintiff would have worked in the non-party mining company's work experience as stated in the above rules of employment for the reason that it would not have been known that it would have worked in the above labor-management company.

However, the reason why the employer required the resume of his career, etc. in hiring workers in a modern enterprise is not only for the purpose of using the work experience, etc. of workers as the data for the assessment of the worker's work ability, but also for the purpose of establishing trust between labor and management and promoting the maintenance of business order and the maintenance of the business order. Thus, if the contents of the worker's career or misrepresentation in the resume affect the trust among the workers or the maintenance of business order, etc. between the workers who are related to any of the above two purposes and the contents of the worker's career or misrepresentation in the resume are discovered in advance, the employer should be deemed to be a ground for punishing the worker, if the worker did not enter into an employment contract or if it is deemed that the contract was not concluded under the same conditions at least, or if it is deemed that the contract was not concluded under the same conditions, the contents of the employment contract between the original and the defendant should also be stated in the above purport.

However, when the plaintiff concludes an employment contract and submits the plaintiff's resume to the above purport, the plaintiff assumes that he had worked in the light industry without covering his work experience in the Bupyeong Commercial Co., Ltd. in the field of his work experience. This assumes that if he had worked in the Bupyeong-do Commercial Co., Ltd. closed in relation to the labor-management division as recognized in the court below, if he had known that he would not be employed in the defendant company, his work experience would be ambiguous, and if he knew of the above fact of the plaintiff's work experience in the course of his identity investigation with the plaintiff after employment, it would be clear that the defendant company did not employ the plaintiff if he had known the above work experience of the plaintiff in advance through the plaintiff's resume, so it would be obvious that the plaintiff did not have employed the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's work experience in the resume, which caused the defendant to misjudgment the plaintiff's personality judgment, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to his work experience, which caused the plaintiff's misjudgment's work experience in the plaintiff's evaluation of work force.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)