1. Misrepresentation of educational background and career, concealment and falsification of information in the resume, etc.

1) Where an employee is found to have falsified or concealed his education and experience at the point of joining the company or where such truth is found in the course of his service to the company, if the company knows of such truth at the point of recruitment, it might choose not to hire him or at least might choose not to provide the same working conditions. This assumption justifies to take appropriate disciplinary dismissal actions. (Supreme Court June 23, ’00, 98da54940)

2) Even if an employee who conceals his low education background has no problem handling his work despite insufficient education and even if he works diligently for a long period, the reason for the company to take justifiable disciplinary dismissal actions remains unchanged. (Supreme Court Mar 14, 89, 87daka3196)

3) In the event where false education and career details in the resume is the result of a mistake or where such fallacy is so trivial , under special circumstances such as inappropriateness based on social norms to warrant a dismissal, the company may not have the justifiable reason to take dismissal action. (Supreme Court Mar 26, ’99, 98do4672)

2. Insincere work attitude such as absence without notice, etc.

1) In the event, the company regulates, for example in its rules of employment, insincere work attitude such as ‘absence without notice’, by stipulating its right to take disciplinary dismissal action “when ‘absent without notice’ exceeds a certain number of days (a number of days in a month)”, such stipulations in the work regulation shall not be null and void even if it violates the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, if an employee repeatedly absent himself from work without notice, the company has justifiable reasons to take disciplinary dismissal actions against him. (Supreme Court Sep 26, ’89, 89daka 5475)

2) In the rules of employment, if the company stipulates the exceeding of a certain period of ‘absence without notice’ as a justifiable reason for taking a disciplinary dismissal action, it does not indicate an accumulation of the total number of ‘absent days without notice’ without limit to that certain period of time. But it should be interpreted as there is a limit to an employee’s total number of ‘absent days without notice’ within a given recognized fixed period (Supreme Court May 9,’89, 88daka4277).

3. Disobedience to order regarding personnel movement, such as workplace transfer, job transfer and company transfer

1) Employees’ absence from work out of defying personnel movement’s order, such as workplace transfer, job transfer and company transfer may justify as reasons for company to take disciplinary dismissal action as such absence may be deemed as absence without notice based on its employment policy or be deemed as disobedience to reasonable order based on the company’s discretion. Whether the reason for disciplinary dismissal is justifiable or not depends on whether the employer’s order for workplace transfer, job transfer and company transfer is reasonable or not (Supreme Court May 10, ’94, 93da47667)

2) In the event a dismissed employee is reinstated to his job based on the court’s judgment of the dismissal as unfair or based on the Labor Relations Commission’s relief order, advice, etc., the company shall carry out the reinstatement of such dismissed employee to his previous job. While reinstating the employee, the employer shall consider any personnel arrangement already implemented from the time of dismissal till reinstatement, its business necessity and change of working environment etc so as to assign appropriate work to the reinstated employee. Even if the newly assigned job is somewhat different from the previous job, it shall be deemed to have reinstated him justifiably because this belongs to the realm of the employer’s fundamental authority and right of management. However, if the employee resorts to actions such as resisting such reinstatement and rejecting the work for a long time, it becomes a reason for dismissal. (Supreme Court July 29, ’94, 94da4295)

1) In the event the employer instructs the employee to perform extra work or overtime work exceeding the contractual working hours agreed between labor and management and the standard working hours stipulated in the Labor Standards Act, but where such instructions are legitimate and justifiable, it can be a reason for justifiable disciplinary dismissal if the employee rejects it. Otherwise, it cannot be a reason for disciplinary dismissal. (Supreme Court Aug 23, ’94, 93nu21514)

2) In the event an employee who received a disciplinary measure is regulated to submit a written explanation, if the employee rejects submitting such a written explanation as required by the disciplinary measure, this can be deemed as a disobedience to justifiable instruction and may become a new reason for disciplinary measure. However, such non submission of written explanation is a light violation, and if the employer chooses the heaviest dismissal action among the various types of disciplinary punishment for the violation, it may generally be deemed to have abused its right in disciplinary action, unless there is special reason for doing so. (Supreme Court Dec 24, ’92, 90da12991)

5. Use of violence against colleagues and superiors

In the rules of employment and collective bargaining agreement, any violent behavior of an employee towards his colleagues and superiors is usually a reason for disciplinary dismissal. This is generally necessary to reflect tight disciplinary principles for the purpose of maintaining management order, and shall not be deemed as a violation of the principles of the Labor Standards Act. However, where disciplinary dismissal is based on such reason of violence, the company shall consolidate various aspects of pre and post events including the motive and the right or wrong etc of such misconduct so that its adoption of such disciplinary dismissal measures can be deemed as based on justifiable reason and not the result of an abuse of disciplinary rights . (Supreme Court mar 13, ’92, 91da39559)

6. Delinquencies in private life

The reason for an employer to have disciplinary rights is for the purpose of maintaining regulation and order within the legal framework necessary for smooth implementation of its business activities. Therefore, an employee’s delinquencies in his private life can only be a reason for justifiable disciplinary dismissal if they are directly related to business activities or if they are likely to damage any social evaluation of the company. (Supreme Court Dec 13, ’94, 93nu23275)

7. Violation of prohibition to hold other job

An employee’s holding of other job at other company belongs to his private realm based on his individual ability. So it is unjustifiable to completely and comprehensively prohibit the holding of other job which does not interfere with the corporate order or the provision of his labor service. Pursuant to this, where the holding of such other job poses a hindrance in the said employee’s provision of labor service to the company due to a long period holding of such said job or the holding of a directorship position in a competitor’s company, such double jobs may be prohibited, in which case the employer may obtain justification of disciplinary dismissal. (Supreme Court Dec 13, ’94, 93nu23275)

8. In event of an employee convicted of criminal charge

In collective bargaining agreement or rules of employment, where reason for disciplinary dismissal includes “in the event employee is convicted of criminal charge”, the purpose of such inclusion is to recognize that such judgment of guilt may affect the company in the following ways: (1) the employee’s basic responsibility in providing labor service is not possible for a long time so the employer cannot accomplish the purpose of the labor contract; (2) the employer and the employee cannot expect to maintain normal labor relations due to loss of mutual reliable relationship, and this causes the harmfulness to maintain corporate order due to loss of reliable relations or human relations with other employees inside the company; and (3) Depending on the employee’s position and contents of the criminal act, the company may suffer a lot of damages in its honor or trust, or there may be bad influence on its business transactions. (Supreme Court May 23, ’97, 97da9239)