The case holding that the act of intentionally omitting the whole process of admission to and graduation from universities and the fact of punishment on the resume submitted at the time of employment constitutes a ground for disciplinary dismissal under the company collective agreement and employment rules.

The purpose of the employer’s resumeing of his/her work experience, etc. is to conduct a survey on the evaluation of labor law, such as workers’ function, experience, etc. Furthermore, it is to establish a trust between labor and management, maintain business order, and maintain stability by using personal survey data, such as the establishment of order and corporate norms of workers. Therefore, if it is discovered that the worker’s work experience or misrepresentation affects the employer’s trust or maintenance of corporate order, etc., and if it is deemed that the employer did not enter into an employment contract or at least the same condition, such act constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, even if the employer has the work force required by the employer. Thus, if the Plaintiff’s work experience or misrepresentation was found to have been found to have not entered into an employment contract or employment contract under the same conditions as the above, it constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, even if the Plaintiff was bound by a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 1978, Jul. 1, 1978; at least one year’s suspension of qualification was determined at the above university and college’s college’s entrance and employment training course;

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu851 Decided October 28, 1986 (No. 343Da346Gong790, 3134)

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

Daegu High Court Decision 85Na529 delivered on January 29, 1986 (177 pages), Seoul High Court Decision 88Na1602 delivered on September 12, 198 (180 pages), North Branch of Seoul District Court Decision 88Nahap3929 delivered on November 24, 198 (183 pages), Seoul High Court Decision 89Na12270 delivered on June 5, 198 (186 pages), 88Na45372 delivered on July 3, 197 (189 pages), Incheon District Court Decision 89Na2981 delivered on November 10, 198 (192 pages), or Supreme Court Decision 89Na2981 delivered on September 26, 199; 89Na393989 delivered on September 24, 198; 209Na39899 delivered on September 16, 199; 309Na1949899.

Ulsan District Court of the first instance (88Gahap4504 delivered on July 1, 201)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

On August 6, 1988, the defendant confirmed that dismissal against the plaintiff is null and void.

From August 28, 198 to the date of returning the plaintiff to his original post, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 16,500 won per day.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

According to the facts that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company on September 1, 1983 and served as the electrical skilled craft and was punished on August 6, 198 by the decision of the personnel management committee of the defendant company on August 6, 198, there is no dispute between the parties concerned, and according to the evidence No. 1 (Public Notice) without dispute over the establishment, the above disciplinary reasons are the grounds for disciplinary action of the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff did not have graduated from the college of education of Seoul University, he did not work for the enterprise called sexual optical electricity, and even though he did not have served for the above university, he did not have served for the above university, the career records in the resume of his employment for the defendant company shall be deemed to have graduated only from the Busan High School and the Fixed Skill Training Institute, and the fact that the above university does not have any counter-proof evidence.

이에 원고는 자신이 피고회사에 입사함에 있어 이력서에 최종학력과 수형사실을 기재하지 아니한 것은 사실이나 성광전기에 근무한 바가 있다고 사칭한 바는 없으며, 그 동안 기능공으로서의 능력을 갖추고 피고회사에 성실히 근무하여 왔고 위 형의 선고에 대하여는 특별사면을 받은 바가 있는 점 등에 비추어 피고회사의 위 징계해고는 결국 그 징계사유가 존재하지 아니하는 것이거나 징계권을 남용한 것으로서 무효이고 또한 그 절차에 있어서도 피고회사가 원고에게 근로기준법 제27조의2 소정의 해고예고를 하지 아니하였을 뿐만 아니라 원고를 징계해고한 위 인사관리위원회는 권한 없는 자에 의하여 소집되어 진행된 후 피징계자인 원고나 피고회사 노동조합 측 참관인들의 참여가 봉쇄된 상태에서 제대로 의결절차를 거치지 아니한 것으로서 그 절차에 있어 피고회사 인사관리위원회규정 소정의 절차를 거치지 아니한 위법이 있어 무효라고 주장함에 대하여 피고는 위 징계해고는 피고회사와 피고회사 노동조합 사이에 체결된 단체협약 및 취업규칙에 따라 징계해고로서의 정당한 사유가 있는 것이며 그 절차에 있어서도 피고회사의 인사관리위원회규정에 따라 적법하게 해고된 것이라고 다투므로 살피건대, 위 갑 제1호증, 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제2호증(공고, 을 제8호증의 2와 같은 것), 을 제1호증(단체협약서), 을 제2호증(취업규칙), 을 제5호증의 2(기능사원 신규채용),3(기능사원 기술평가 및 면접표),4, 5(각 이력서),6(졸업증명서),7(수료증명서), 을 제16호증(판결), 원심증인 소외 1의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제3호증(징계위원회 회의록), 을 제4호증의 1,2(징계의결서 표지 및 내용),3(징계의결서),4(징계사유서), 을 제6호증의 1(징계위원회 회의록 표지),2(징계위원회 회의록),3(징계위원회 재심결의서),4(징계사유서), 당심증인 소외 2의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제12호증의 1 내지 7(각 초심 징계투표용지), 을 제13호증(품의서)의 각 기재와 위 증인 소외 1, 소외 2, 당심증인 소외 3의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고회사와 그 노동조합과의 사이에 체결된 단체협약 제26조는 회사의 종업원이 그 각호의 1에 해당할 때에는 징계할 수 있다고 규정하고 동 제4호는 입사시 채용조건에 관계있는 중요사항을 허위로 기재 또는 제출하였을 때를 징계사유로 열거하고 있으며, 동 제27조는 징계의 종류로 경고, 견책, 감봉, 출근정지, 정직, 해고 등 6가지를 규정하고 있고, 동 제29조는 회사가 종업원을 중징계(정직 이상)하고자 할 경우에는 동 조항 소정의 절차를 따라야 하며 이에 의하지 아니한 징계는 무효라고 규정하고, 징계위원회에서는 노동조합원 임원 1명, 운영위원 1명, 소속대의원 1명이 참고인으로 참석하여 변론할 수 있고, 징계위원회는 징계대상 조합원에게 자기 변명의 기회를 부여하고 증인을 신청할 때에는 이를 허용한다고 규정하고 있는 사실, 또한 피고회사 취업규칙 제70조는 회사는 그 종업원이 그 각 호의 1에 해당할 때에는 징계한다고 규정하고 그 제5호는 사기 또는 부정한 방법으로 채용되었음이 발견되었을 경우를 징계사유로 열거하고 있으며, 동 취업규칙 제16조는 회사는 종업원이 그 각호의 1에 해당하는 경우에는 해고할 수 있다고 규정하고 그 제3호는 신원, 경력, 자격 등에 관하여 주요사항을 속이거나 사기 또는 부정한 방법으로 채용된 경우를 그 통상해고사유로 열거하고 있는 사실, 또한 피고회사는 인사관리에 관한 제반사항을 심의 의결하기 위하여 인사관리위원회를 두고 그 운영, 구성, 임무 및 운영에 관한 규칙으로 인사관리위원회 규정을 두고 있는데 동 규정 제3조는 인사관리위원회로서 "갑"인사관리위원회와 "을"인사관리위원회를 두며, "갑"인사관리위원회는 위원장 부사장, 부위원장 관리담당중역, 위원 전 중역과 총무부장, 위원장이 위촉하는 부서장, 간사 인사과장으로 구성하고, "을"인사관리위원회는 위원장 관리담당중역, 부위원장 총무부장, 위원 공장장, 위원장이 위촉하는 부서장, 간사 인사과장으로 구성한다고 규정하고 동 규정 제5조는 "갑"인사관리위원회는 인사운영의 기본방침, 4급 이상 사원의 임용, 승진, 포상, 징계, 고과의 기본방향수립 및 계획에 관한 사항, 복리후생에 관한 사항, 교육훈련에 관한 사항, 안전보건에 관한 사항, 기타 인사에 관련된 사항을 심의 의결하며, "을"인사관리위원회는 5급 이하 및 기능직 사원의 임용, 승진, 포상, 징계, 고과의 기본방향수립 및 계획에 관한 사항을 심의 의결한다고 규정하고 있는 사실, 한편 원고는 1976.2. 부산고등학교를 졸업하고, 서울대학교 사범대학에 입학하여 수학하던중 1978.7. 대통령긴급조치위반으로 구속되어 1978.11. 제적되고 1979.7. 대법원에서 징역 1년, 자격

On March 26, 1987, the Plaintiff’s act of taking part in the above one year’s punishment was finalized, and graduated from February 1982 after being released. From September 1982 to August 1983, the Korea Vocational Training Foundation submitted technical training courses at the fixed vocational training institute, and the resume was intentionally omitted when entering the Defendant Company, and entered only the Busan High School and the Fixed-Number Vocational Training Institute as if it was completed, and entered the employment contract with the Defendant Company as if it was false, and worked as Grade 5 trillion assistant members of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance. However, on July 26, 1987, the Plaintiff was led to the establishment of so-called Democratic Labor-Management Group within the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the head of Nonparty 1’s first meeting composed of 33 members of the above labor union, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s act of taking part in the training courses by Nonparty 1’s executive secretary and the vice president’s disciplinary action against the Defendant Company’s 80th executive secretary.

The purpose of this study is to establish a trust relationship between labor and management, maintain business order, and maintain stability by using personal data such as the work performance, experience, etc. of workers as well as to make a resume an employee's work evaluation data in employing workers. Thus, if the work experience or misrepresentation in the resume affects the trust relationship with the workers or the maintenance of business order, etc., and if the work name was discovered in advance, it is deemed that the employer did not enter into an employment contract or did not enter into an employment contract at least on the same condition, the ground for disciplinary action against the worker should be taken even if the worker has the labor force required by the employer without any justifiable reason. In light of the contents of the collective agreement or employment rules as seen above, it is clear that the above recognition does not enter into an employment contract at least on the same condition with the Plaintiff when the defendant employs the plaintiff, and thus, it is not necessary to determine disciplinary action as disciplinary action and disciplinary action as disciplinary action under Article 270 of the above collective agreement.

Then, even if the plaintiff's assertion that the above disciplinary action was not legitimate, it is clear in the legislative text of Article 27-2 of the Labor Standards Act that it does not require a prior notice of dismissal in the event of dismissal due to reasons attributable to the worker, such as disciplinary action, as well as the above personnel management committee's regulations are the basic personnel management committee of the defendant company which makes a decision on the establishment of the basic direction and plan for personnel management of "A" as well as the purport of delegation of matters concerning the appointment, promotion, reward, and disciplinary action of "A" and "B" to the "Personnel management committee," which are institutions that guarantee the employer's right to order work by maintaining order within the organization of the defendant company and securing the employer's right to order work by maintaining the order within the defendant company, "A", "B" and "B" members of the personnel management committee do not overlap with one factory head, and the above personnel management committee's disciplinary action regulations cannot be said to be unlawful by holding the above disciplinary action regulations for non-party 2, a general personnel management committee's reason for disclosure.

Therefore, the plaintiff did not hear the opinion of the representative of the labor union of the defendant company in the course of its preparation, and even after its preparation, it did not inform the workers of the fact that there is no reason to believe that the above disciplinary dismissal was null and void. However, there is no evidence to prove that there was such error in the process of the preparation of the rules of employment of the defendant company or the process of informing the workers of the preparation of

In addition, in light of the significant impact of disciplinary dismissal on workers, the plaintiff can take disciplinary action only when it falls under the ordinary grounds for dismissal under Article 30 of the collective agreement of the defendant company, and in other cases, it shall be deemed that only minor disciplinary action may be taken than dismissal. Thus, the rules of employment of the defendant company which provide that disciplinary action may be taken for reasons other than those enumerated in ordinary grounds for dismissal in the collective agreement are null and void in violation of the above collective agreement, even though it is not in violation of the above collective agreement, the disciplinary action for reasons other than ordinary grounds for dismissal is null and void, and it is not possible to take disciplinary action for reasons other than those listed in the general grounds for dismissal in the collective agreement on the ground that it does not constitute abuse of the right of disciplinary action. In addition, the above argument cannot be accepted.

The plaintiff argues that the above disciplinary action was taken as a retaliation against the plaintiff's employee company's trade union's activities in substance and thus is invalid, but the disciplinary action against the worker is presumed to be a disciplinary action even if the employer is presumed to exclude the worker's trade union activities, so the dismissal disposition is not unlawful. Thus, the above argument is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation on the premise that the above disciplinary dismissal is null and void, and also seeking payment of wages from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement is without merit, and the decision of the court below that made the same conclusion is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of appeal costs.

Judges' maintenance wall (Presiding Judge) Noh Young-gu's class