(a) A reason why an enterprise requests the submission of a resume, etc. stating the academic background or career in employing workers; or the case holding that it constitutes a reason to punish a worker who assumes a false educational background and leaves a job and conceals it;

C. Company's anti-trade union will and illegality of dismissal.

A. The reason why a company requires a resume or a certificate stating an academic background or career while employing workers is not only to evaluate workers' work ability, but also to determine whether to employ workers through a prior personal judgment such as the worker's intelligence and experience, educational degree, suspension of duty and adaptation to work, so it is necessary to determine whether to employ workers or not in order to maintain trust and maintain corporate order. Thus, it is intended to be considered as a result of such determination.

(b) The case holding that it constitutes a ground for disciplinary action to punish a worker who continued to work for eight years after he/she misrepresented himself/herself as a middle school graduate while entering a company which requires the middle school graduate or higher academic background and submitted a false certificate to the graduate certificate;

C. The dismissal disposition cannot be deemed unlawful, inasmuch as it is clearly acknowledged that a disciplinary action against workers and an employee’s intent to exclude the employee’s trade union activities is presumed to be unlawful.

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Meu2202 Decided April 9, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2410 Decided January 31, 1989

Plaintiff

Defendant Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant corporation-appellee and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na1199 delivered on November 20, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) determined that the Plaintiff was not subject to disciplinary action against the Defendant Company on the ground that the Plaintiff was not subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s employees for a certain period of 8 years following the Plaintiff’s graduation, which would not have been subject to disciplinary action against the Defendant Company’s graduation; (b) the Plaintiff would not have been subject to disciplinary action against the Defendant Company on the ground that the Plaintiff would not have been subject to disciplinary action against the Defendant Company for the reason that the Plaintiff would not have been subject to disciplinary action against the Defendant Company’s employees for more than 8 years, on the ground that the Plaintiff would not have been subject to disciplinary action against the Defendant Company for the reason that the Plaintiff would not have been subject to such disciplinary action against the Defendant Company’s graduation; (c) the Plaintiff would not have been subject to any new disciplinary action against the Defendant Company’s employees for more than 9 years, on the ground that the Plaintiff would have been subject to a new disciplinary action against the Defendant Company’s graduation.

2. However, a resume or a certificate stating an academic background or career while employing a worker is required not only to evaluate the worker's ability to work but also to determine whether to work through a prior personal judgment such as the worker's intelligence and experience, degree of education, suspension of duty, and the settlement of work and adaptation to work, so it is necessary to determine whether to work or not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2410, Jan. 31, 1989).

According to the facts of the court below's decision, the defendant company was required to have an academic background more than a middle school graduate, and the plaintiff was required to submit a middle school graduate certificate by the method of proving the above academic background. Despite the absence of a middle school graduate, it is clear in our empirical rule that if the defendant was aware of the above contents when employing the plaintiff, he did not employ the plaintiff considering the personal aspects, such as the suspension of duty, etc. in addition to the plaintiff's working ability, and even if the plaintiff did not cause any obstacle to work due to lack of ability due to lack of academic ability, it cannot be a reason to support the plaintiff's working ability, i.e., the reason to support the plaintiff's working ability, and the fact that the plaintiff continued to work for eight years after his entry, it is not reasonable to view that the above fact of forging academic name and document forgery, etc. might have a negative influence on the maintenance of the order of the defendant company for the above eight years after the lapse of eight years.

In addition, the court below held that the defendant's disciplinary action after 12 years prior to the statute of limitations period of limitations for the article on official document was beyond the scope of the right of disciplinary action. However, according to the final and conclusive facts of the court below, the defendant was already aware of the plaintiff's academic history history in the light of August 4, 1982, and the plaintiff was already subject to the first disciplinary action on August 11, 1982 due to interference with business and damage to reputation, etc., and the plaintiff's winning judgment became final and conclusive on March 7, 1986, since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff became final and conclusive on March 7, 1986, it is obvious that the defendant could not be subject to duplicate dismissal of the plaintiff on the ground of academic history name

In addition, the court below cited that the disciplinary dismissal in this case was conducted as a means to avoid exercising the influence over the plaintiff's trade union. However, even if the disciplinary dismissal in this case is presumed to have the intention to exclude the plaintiff's trade union's activities, it cannot be viewed that the dismissal disposition is unlawful merely on the ground that the intention of the anti-trade union is presumed to be unlawful, since it is clearly recognized that the elements for disciplinary dismissal as seen above cannot continue to exist, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the intention

3. Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for disciplinary dismissal and the employer's right of dismissal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)