[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Hanil Ewha Co., Ltd. (한일이화주식회사)
[Judgment Below] Busan High Court, Judgment rendered January 17, 1992, Case No. 91Na8395
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning] The grounds of appeal are examined.
The reason an enterprise, when hiring a worker, requires a resume stating academic background or career history and the certificates thereof is not merely to evaluate the worker's ability to work, that is, labor capacity, but because, for the formation of trust between labor and management and for the maintenance of corporate order, it is necessary to decide whether to employ the worker after a comprehensive judgment of the worker's whole personality, including intelligence, experience, level of education, honesty, and settledness in and adaptability to the workplace, and the resume and certificates serve as material for such judgment; therefore, if the misrepresentation of the worker's prior background had been discovered beforehand, and it is recognized that the employer would not have entered into the employment contract, or would at least not have entered into the contract on the same terms, such misrepresentation must be deemed to constitute grounds for disciplinary action against the worker (see this Court's Decisions 83Daka2202, rendered April 7, 1985; 87Daka3196, rendered March 14, 1989, etc.).
According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the court below, the court below recognized the following facts based on the evidence cited therein: that Article 25 of the Defendant company's collective bargaining agreement provides that a union member may be disciplined where he or she violates duties of good faith, etc., for the maintenance of order in the performance of business; that Article 20 of the Defendant company's employment rules (취업규칙) provides that an employee who is ordered to report matters necessary for service or to submit documents shall comply without delay and shall not make false entries or refuse to comply; that Article 63, Item 3 thereof lists, as one of the grounds for disciplinary action against an employee, the discovery that the employee was employed by misrepresenting an important part of his or her personal history or by other wrongful means; and that Article 55 thereof lists, as one of the grounds for dismissal, a case where grounds for disciplinary action have been determined pursuant to Article 63; that the Plaintiff graduated from Busan Donga High School in February 1979, entered the Department of Business Administration at Chung-Ang University on March 2, 1980, and, while studying there, took a leave of absence on August 31, 1983, with only the second semester of the fourth year remaining, and then withdrew from the university on March 31, 1986; that from around July 1986, the Plaintiff was wanted by the police as an organizational leader of the Marxist-Leninist Party organized by college students with leftist leanings, and the warrant was lifted on December 21, 1988, pursuant to a special presidential amnesty; that, nevertheless, when submitting his resume upon joining the Defendant company, the Plaintiff intentionally omitted the entire process of his admission to, study at, and withdrawal from the above university, and falsely stated that he had only graduated from Busan Donga High School, and thereby entered into an employment contract with the Defendant company, which believed this false statement, and worked as a welder in the Defendant company's Production Department 2; that, however, in the course of the Defendant company's inspection to check for persons omitted from reserve forces and civil defense organization, the Plaintiff's above academic background and the fact that he had been a wanted person were discovered, and the Defendant company's personnel manager, non-party ○○○, summoned the Plaintiff on May 28, 1990 and demanded that he prepare his resume anew; that the Plaintiff again prepared his resume twice concealing the above academic background, but, upon the continued demand of the above ○○○, finally prepared a resume stating his actual academic background, thereby admitting to the above concealment; and that the Defendant company, finding that the Plaintiff's above conduct violated Article 20 of the above employment rules and fell under Article 63, Item 3 thereof, resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff by way of disciplinary action and did so dismiss him. In light of the content of the above collective bargaining agreement and employment rules, the court below determined that, considering that it is recognized that if the Defendant had known of the above-recognized concealment of academic background and career at the time of hiring the Plaintiff, the Defendant would at least not have entered into the employment contract with the Plaintiff on the same terms as at the time of his joining the company, the above disciplinary dismissal of the Plaintiff was lawful and valid. The above findings and determination of the court below are acceptable, and in this case, the mere fact that, beyond what is provided in the collective bargaining agreement and employment rules as set forth above, the Defendant did not specifically state in advance, at the time of hiring the Plaintiff, a condition such as that persons with a higher level of education than stated would be disqualified, does not permit the conclusion that the disciplinary dismissal of the Plaintiff was a dismissal without justifiable cause.
The grounds of appeal are all without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party; this judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Supreme Court Justice Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Judge), Yoon Kwan, Kim Ju-han, Kim Yong-jun