Requirements for a worker to conceal or misrepresent his/her educational background at the time of employment to become a ground for disciplinary dismissal.

The reason why an employer requires an employee's academic achievement in a modern enterprise is the purpose of establishing trust between labor and management, maintaining business order, and stabilizing business order by using the judgment data such as evaluation of the labor force, determination of the terms and conditions of labor, management of labor, appropriateness of placement, etc. and the worker's workplace, and the personality survey data such as the adaptability to the business norm, etc. Therefore, even in cases where the worker has entered a job by concealing or misrepresenting his/her academic achievement, if the concealment or misrepresentation of his/her academic achievement affects the employer's trust with the worker or the maintenance of business order, etc., and if it is not recognized that the employer would not enter into an employment contract or enter into an employment contract under the same conditions if he/she had known his/her academic achievement or misrepresentation in advance, it shall not be deemed a ground for disciplinary action against the worker. In cases where the rules of employment stipulate that disciplinary action has been taken against the worker by misrepresenting his/her academic achievement, the content of the relevant

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Meu2202 Decided April 9, 1985

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu584 delivered on October 14, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

(1) In a modern enterprise, the reason why an employer requires an employee's academic achievement is to establish trust between labor and management, maintain business order, and stabilize business order by using the judgment data such as evaluation of the labor force, determination of the terms and conditions of labor, management of labor, appropriateness of placement, etc. of workers' work place, and the personality investigation data such as adaptability to business order, corporate norm, etc. Therefore, even in cases where a worker conceals or misrepresents his/her academic achievement and enters the same place of business, such concealment or misrepresentation of his/her academic achievement affect the employer's trust with respect to workers, or maintenance of business order, etc., and if it is not recognized that the employer would not enter into an employment contract if he/she had known in advance the name of his/her academic achievement or misrepresentation, it shall not be deemed a ground for disciplinary action against the worker, and if the rules of employment provide for disciplinary action against a worker who misrepresents his/her academic achievement, the content of the provision shall also be construed to the same purport (see Supreme Court Decision 202Da2024, Apr. 9, 1985).

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below stated that the above company's qualifications for employment of all employees requires the above employees to take disciplinary action against the employees employed by fraud, false records, or other unlawful means. The above academic background is also required at the time of employment advertisement. Although the non-party was employed by the company as if he was out of the fifth grade of national school, the non-party was found to have been employed by the company as if he was out of the second grade of high school. However, the non-party did not have any influence on the academic ability since he was mainly engaged in the GL work after the membership of the company. The plaintiff company did not have any significant influence on the academic ability of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company did not enter the above 2-year curriculum and resident registration certificate in light of the court below's reasoning that the non-party company did not have any influence on the academic ability of the non-party company's appointment and the non-party company's appointment of the non-party's employees since it did not constitute the non-party's academic ability or any other defect due to the non-party's employees.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to the records of evidence No. 2 submitted by the plaintiff company Gap, the judgment of the National Labor Relations Commission of this case was duly made by the public interest committee composed of three public interest members, and there is no evidence inconsistent with this, so there is no ground to charge any error. In addition, there is no ground to charge any violation of the rights of the employer, and there is no ground to find any legal ground to the effect that the labor union to which the worker belongs should be indicated in the name of the worker when the worker files an application for remedy to the Labor Relations Commission pursuant to Article 40 of the Trade Union Act. Thus, there is no ground to charge that the application for reexamination against the non-party's National Labor Relations Commission which did not indicate the labor union to which the worker belongs is illegal, because there is no objection.

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

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)