A. Whether disciplinary action may be taken on grounds other than those listed in the collective agreement or employment rules if the grounds for disciplinary action are limited

B. Even if a person to be disciplined constitutes grounds for ipso facto retirement of illegality, whether such disciplinary action should comply with the provisions on disciplinary proceedings and constitute grounds for disciplinary action

(a) If grounds for disciplinary action against workers are restricted in accordance with the collective agreement or rules of employment, etc., the disciplinary action shall not be taken against such workers for reasons other than those listed therein;

B. In addition to the grounds for disciplinary action on the illegality of a person to be disciplined, if the employer referred the person to be disciplined to the disciplinary committee for the reason of the misconduct, the employer should comply with the provisions on the disciplinary procedure such as the rules of employment as well as the disciplinary action on the ground of the misconduct should constitute the grounds for disciplinary action.

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da27556 delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong1992,2841) (Gong1992, 2841) 93Da37915 delivered on November 9, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 85). Supreme Court Decision 92Da4935 delivered on October 22, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3151)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Attorney Kim Nam-jin, Counsel for the public plant

Daegu High Court Decision 92Na5288 delivered on September 23, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4

If the grounds for disciplinary action against a worker are set out in a collective agreement or rules of employment, etc., it shall not be subject to disciplinary action for reasons other than those listed as such (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da37915, Nov. 9, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 91Da27556, Sept. 8, 1992, etc.). Even if a person subject to disciplinary action falls under a reason for ipso facto retirement, such as the rules of employment, even if the employer has referred the person subject to disciplinary action to the disciplinary committee for the reason of the misappropriation, the employer must comply with the rules of employment and other rules of employment (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da4935, Oct. 22, 1993).

However, according to the rules of employment (Evidence B) of the defendant company, separately from the list of grounds for the disciplinary action in Article 44 to Article 7, Article 27 provides the grounds for retirement as one of the grounds for retirement under Article 27 (3) 6. Meanwhile, according to the personnel regulations (Evidence B) stipulating the matters concerning personnel affairs, such as employment, dismissal, and disciplinary action of employees of the defendant company, the grounds for retirement are not included in Article 27 (3) 6. In addition to the provisions on grounds for the disciplinary action in Article 26 to Article 10, Article 6 lists the grounds for disqualification in Article 6, and Article 16 provides that "when there is an important defect in statements of history and personal information," and Article 16 provides that "when it falls under any subparagraph of Article 6," the grounds for retirement are not included in the career false entry in the curriculum of each of the grounds for disciplinary action listed above.

Therefore, in the case of the defendant company, the false entry of the career experience in the resume is defined as grounds for ipso facto retirement only in cases where it falls under significant matters (the above meaning should be interpreted as "when there is an important defect in the history and new commercial port" which is grounds for disqualification from employment in the personnel regulations.)

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant can be recognized as referring the plaintiff to the disciplinary committee for the reason of false entry of the plaintiff's career experience. Thus, if the defendant intends to punish the plaintiff for the reason of false entry of the plaintiff's resume, the act of false entry of the resume's career constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. As seen above, since the act of false entry of the plaintiff's career experience does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action under the rules of employment or personnel regulations of the defendant company, it cannot be viewed as a ground for disciplinary action (And, as recognized by the court below, the contents of false entry of the plaintiff's resume's resume's career entered into the non-party company on January 20, 1983 and were dismissed on March 14 of the same year and returned again on April 4, 1987, it cannot be viewed as an abuse of the plaintiff's career experience, and it cannot be viewed as a ground for disciplinary action against the non-party company's temporary retirement from the defendant company's work experience to April 30, 19, 198.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and 6

In light of the records, we affirm the court below's rejection of the testimony on the date of exclusion of witness of the court of first instance, which corresponds to the fact that the plaintiff demanded against the defendant company a gold of KRW 30,000,000 as a condition of retirement, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the duty of explanation such as the theory of lawsuit against the rules of evidence. Further, even if the court below recognized that the plaintiff was employed as a regular member on December 3, 1990, it can be justified and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of employment and personnel order such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)