Whether an act of misrepresenting the power by stating false academic background or career in the curriculum vitae, etc. requested at the time of concluding an employment contract can be deemed a disciplinary cause.

The resume and the reason why the company requires the company's academic background or experience while employing workers requires not only to evaluate the worker's ability to work but also to decide whether to work through a prior personal judgment such as the worker's intelligence and experience, degree of education, suspension of work, ability to settle and adapt to work, etc. In order to maintain trust and maintain the order of the company, the employer should be deemed to be a ground for disciplinary action for the worker if it is deemed that the worker did not enter into an employment contract or that the employer would not enter into an employment contract at least the same condition.

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 3705, Dec. 7, 1990) (Gong1989, 715, 198) (Law No. 1989, 715, 198)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Han Il-sung corporation

Busan High Court Decision 91Na8395 delivered on January 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The resume and the reason why the company requires the company's academic background or career while employing workers requires not only to evaluate the worker's work ability, but also to decide whether to employ workers through a prior personal judgment such as the worker's intelligence and experience level of education, suspension of education, and settlement and adaptation ability to work in order to maintain the trust and maintain the order of the company. Thus, if the title of the power was discovered in advance, the employer should be deemed as grounds for disciplinary action against the worker if it is deemed that the employer did not enter into an employment contract or at least the same condition did not enter into an employment contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Meu202, Apr. 7, 1985; 87Meu3196, Mar. 14, 1989).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, Article 25 of the company's collective agreement provides that if a member of the above company violated his duty of good faith to maintain order, etc., the defendant company's employment rules shall be subject to disciplinary action without delay if the employee was ordered to report or submit documents necessary for service, and Article 63 subparagraph 3 of the rules of employment provides that one of the grounds for disciplinary action against the employee shall not be deemed as important, or that the defendant was employed by other unlawful means. Article 55 provides that one of the reasons for dismissal shall be one of the reasons for the disciplinary action under Article 63, and the plaintiff shall be deemed to have graduated from the Busan East High School on February 1979 and entered the above department of the Central University on March 2, 1983, the court below's decision that the above act of the defendant company was legitimate and thus, shall be deemed to have no more than 4 years and 200 times the above company's employment rules, and it shall be deemed that the defendant company was not a member of the company's labor force.

All arguments are without merit.

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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)