Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

Park Young-young

Suwon Heavy Industries Corporation

Incheon District Court (86 Gohap741)

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 74,489 won per month from November 5, 1985 to the time the plaintiff is reinstated.

3. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

4. The above paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

It is confirmed that the dismissal of the defendant against the plaintiff as of November 4, 1985 is null and void.

From November 5, 1985 to the date of the reinstatement of the plaintiff to the original position, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to KRW 349,489 per month.

A judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution (the claim has been expanded in the trial).

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The judgment that the total cost of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On June 9, 1984, the Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendant Company as Defendant 1 and had been dismissed on November 4, 1985. The facts that were dismissed on November 1, 1985 are no dispute between the parties concerned, Gap evidence 1 (the same shall apply to Eul's order for dismissal, Eul evidence 6), Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, and evidence 9 were assigned to the Plaintiff on the same date as the above 10th anniversary of the issuance of new rules of employment. The Plaintiff’s new rules of employment were stated on the 19th new rules of employment for the same date as Defendant 2, and the new rules of employment for the same period of 19th new new rules of employment for the same period of 19th new new rules of employment for the same period of 20th new new rules of employment for the same period of 19th new new rules of employment for the same 19th new rules of employment for the same period of 19th new new rules of employment for the same date.

The plaintiff asserted that the disciplinary dismissal of the defendant company was null and void because it was done without any justifiable reason. The defendant stated that the plaintiff had worked for the non-party 5 company of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") from July 1979 to October 1981 in the resume submitted by the plaintiff when he was employed for the defendant company. In addition, the defendant believed that the plaintiff was employed as a technician and entered the plaintiff by giving 2-10 salary class instead of salary class 2-7, which is the salary class of the new technician, and the plaintiff was employed for the non-party 1, from October 1983 to February 1, 1984, although the plaintiff had worked for the non-party 1, the defendant intentionally omitted the entry. Thus, the defendant's personal problem, history, and career itself could directly affect the human resources management of the company, the trust of the employees of the company, and the defendant company's new employee's career experience, and therefore it is justified to hold the personnel management committee's disciplinary action for the defendant company.

The purpose of this study is not only to evaluate the labor force of workers, to manage the labor force, to maintain proper placement, etc., but also to promote the establishment of trust between labor and management or the maintenance of corporate order by using the personality survey data such as the settlement of work place, adaptation to corporate order, cooperation among the workers. Thus, even if the worker conceals or misrepresents his work experience in the resume, such concealment or misrepresentation affects the employer's trust or the maintenance of corporate order, and it cannot be deemed that the employer did not conclude an employment contract if he had known of his work experience or misrepresentation in advance, it cannot be viewed as a ground for disciplinary action against the plaintiff, unless it is acknowledged that the employer did not enter the above work experience or misrepresentation into an employment contract with the same condition, or that the plaintiff was not subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff, who was not subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff, as stated in the rules of employment, even if the plaintiff was employed by misrepresentation or misrepresentation of his work experience, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as a ground for disciplinary action against the plaintiff.

Therefore, the above dismissal of the plaintiff against the plaintiff is in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and the employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant still remains effective unless there are special circumstances so long as the above dismissal is null and void per annum. According to the purport of the oral argument, it can be recognized that the defendant, after dismissal of the plaintiff, refused the plaintiff's employment by asserting that dismissal is effective until now. Thus, the plaintiff's duty of work under an employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant after dismissal can not be performed due to the recipient of the defendant company, which is the employer. Thus, the plaintiff can claim for the payment of wages for the defendant company from the above dismissal to the original work, and the amount of wages shall be equivalent to the wages that the defendant company would have received if there was no dismissal of the defendant company. Furthermore, according to the above written evidence No. 3 ( wage Ledger) of the above defendant company, the above plaintiff's wage amount shall be paid from 30 to 97, 198, 304, 1985, 305, 197, 4.57, 15.25

Therefore, the above disciplinary dismissal against the defendant who argued that the above disciplinary dismissal against the plaintiff is valid, and the above disciplinary dismissal is sought to confirm the invalidity of the above disciplinary dismissal, and the plaintiff's claim for wages in proportion to 349,489 won per month from November 5, 1985 to the time the defendant reinstated the plaintiff is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the defendant's claim is paid in proportion to 74,489 (349,489-275,000 per month from November 5, 1985 to the time of reinstatement. With respect to the payment of litigation costs and provisional execution, Article 95 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall be applied to each order.

Judges Go Jin-sik (Presiding Judge)