Whether dismissal constitutes unfair labor practices by reason of disciplinary reasons for the omission of academic background and career records at the time of entry.

In order to evaluate workers' ability to work and maintain corporate order, it is necessary to determine whether a company is an employee through a prior personal judgment in consideration of the worker's intelligence, common sense, experience, function, educational degree, suspension of work, settlement and adaptation to work, etc. Therefore, as long as a company has intentionally omitted the company's academic background and experience in the resume submitted while joining the company, it should be deemed as an "person employed by fraud or wrongful means", which is the reason for dismissal under the company's rules of employment, in light of the importance of the company's experience, so the company's disciplinary action cannot be deemed as a "person employed by fraud or wrongful means", which is the reason for dismissal under the company's rules of employment, and a company's dismissal of the company as a reason for disciplinary action is merely an exercise of the employer's inherent disciplinary power to maintain corporate order, and it cannot be deemed as an unfair labor practice.

Article 39 of the Trade Union Act, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Plaintiff

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Attorney Ham Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu9868 delivered on September 10, 1993

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Intervenor’s labor union centered on the Plaintiff did not carry out active labor union activities since the Intervenor was employed by the Intervenor Company’s labor union head on September 1, 1992, taking into account that the Intervenor’s career experience as of December 10, 190 (hereinafter only referred to as “the Intervenor”)’s work experience as of December 10, 190, and that the Intervenor Company’s work experience as of the Plaintiff’s 10th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s work experience, and that the Intervenor Company’s work experience as of this case’s work experience as of this case’s 10th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s work experience, and that the Intervenor Company’s work experience as of this case’s work experience as of this case’s 10th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s work experience and 10th work experience, and that the Intervenor Company’s work experience and 10th work experience as of this case’s work experience were not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action against the Intervenor’s workers.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)