[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Motorola Korea Co., Ltd., Litigation Representatives Attorney Lee Jae-hu and 2 others
[Lower Court Judgment] Seoul High Court Decision 90Na4459 rendered on July 18, 1990
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The Court examines the grounds of appeal submitted by the Plaintiff's litigation representatives.
1.
Where the disciplinary provisions of the rules of employment, etc. do not stipulate procedures such as giving the person subject to disciplinary charges an opportunity to appear and make statements, it cannot be held that a dismissal carried out without following such procedures is invalid on that ground alone (see this Court's Decisions 85Daka375, 85Daka1591 rendered on July 8, 1986; 78Da304 rendered on January 30, 1979; 79Nu306 rendered on December 26, 1979, etc.).
The lower court found that the Defendant company's internal regulations stipulated only the grounds for dismissal without providing any provisions regarding the composition of a disciplinary committee or dismissal procedures, and that the Defendant company itself organized a disciplinary committee as stated in the original judgment, confirmed that the Plaintiff's conduct as found in the judgment constituted grounds for dismissal, and, after the Plaintiff refused to comply with a recommendation to resign as found in the judgment, dismissed the Plaintiff through a resolution of the aforementioned disciplinary committee. The lower court's determination that this dismissal procedure against the Plaintiff was lawful is correct, and there is no error in its interpretation of the law regarding the "justifiable cause" under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) or otherwise regarding the law on dismissal procedures.
2.
The reason an employer requires a resume stating educational background, work experience, etc. when hiring an employee is not only to evaluate the employee's labor capacity based thereon, but also because, for the purpose of building trust between labor and management and maintaining order within the enterprise, it is necessary to determine whether to hire the employee through a comprehensive personal assessment covering the employee's intelligence, experience, level of education, honesty, and adaptability to the workplace, and such information serves as material for that assessment (see this Court's Decisions 87Daka3196 rendered on March 14, 1989; 87Daka2410 rendered on January 31, 1989, etc.).
According to the reasoning of the lower court's judgment, the lower court found, based on the evidence presented, the following facts: that the Defendant company's internal regulations classify disciplinary measures into written warning, suspension from work, and dismissal, and provide, among other grounds for dismissal, "cases of intentional concealment or false statement regarding past work experience or other material matters"; that the Plaintiff joined the Defendant company on April 22, 1985 and worked as a mold maker; that before joining the Defendant company, the Plaintiff was arrested on March 29, 1982 on suspicion of rape resulting in injury, was sentenced by the Seoul District Court, Eastern Branch, on July 2, 1982 to an indefinite term of imprisonment of a minimum of 2 years and 6 months and a maximum of 3 years for the crime of rape resulting in injury, appealed the sentence, and was sentenced by the Seoul High Court on November 4, 1982 to 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment with a suspended execution of 3 years, upon which he was released, and that judgment became final around that time; that the Plaintiff was exempted from military conscription as a result of receiving this criminal punishment, but nevertheless, in the application for employment submitted when joining the Defendant company, stated in the section concerning whether he had ever been arrested and any charges that he had never been arrested, and stated in the military service record section that he had been exempted from conscription due to being an only son (adopted son) benefit; that although the Plaintiff had worked at the non-party Ewha Electric Industry Co., Ltd. only from February 2, 1981 to January 28, 1982 before joining the Defendant company, he falsely stated in the said application for employment and in the resume submitted together with it that he had worked at the said Ewha Electric Industry Co., Ltd. from March 27, 1981 to August 13, 1983; and that the Defendant company has approximately 3,000 employees, of whom approximately 80 percent are women. Based on these findings, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff's concealment of his criminal record for rape resulting in injury and false statement of his work experience as described above would hinder the Defendant company's personal background investigation and maintenance of corporate order with respect to the Plaintiff, given that most of the Defendant company's employees are women, and had a material effect on the decision of whether to hire the Plaintiff, and therefore constituted grounds for disciplinary dismissal as provided in the Defendant company's internal regulations. This determination accords with the view of this Court set forth above and is correct, and the fact that the false statements concerned matters occurring several years before joining the company, or that the Plaintiff worked diligently after joining the company without causing any loss to the Defendant company, does not warrant a different conclusion. Accordingly, there is no error in the lower court's determination in its interpretation of the law on dismissal.
The grounds of appeal are all without merit.
3. Accordingly, 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, with the unanimous concurrence of the Justices participating in the case.
Chief Justice Choi Jae-ho, Justice Yun Kwan, Justice Kim Ju-han, Justice Kim Yong-jun