Corporate trends / Performance record
‘Suspicion of False Career History (Discrepancy Between Career Certificate and Health Insurance Records)’ Unfair Dismissal Decision (Unfair Dismissal 209)
- Date2026/02/17 04:04
- Read 223
This case is an unfair dismissal decision in which the employee prevailed in full on the issue of “suspicion of false career history (discrepancy between career certificate and health insurance records).”
[Case Information]
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9021 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.11 · Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Key issues summarized:
① The mere fact that the period of employment stated in the career certificate issued by ○○ Metal differed from the period of coverage at the same workplace shown in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate did not, by itself, allow a conclusion that the career certificate submitted by the employee was false;
② The employee and CEO Jeong ○○ had not been relatives or in a similar relationship since 24 October 2014, and the mere fact that the employee and the CEO of ○○ Metal had once had a special relationship did not suffice to deem the career certificate false;
③ The corporate registry of ○○ Metal…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the company imposed disciplinary dismissal on the ground that the career certificate for ○○ Metal submitted by the employee at the time of hiring was false. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in a comprehensive manner, the discrepancy between the period of employment stated in the career certificate and the period of coverage in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate, the existence of any kinship or similar relationship, and the corporate registry and financial data, and on that basis determined whether the grounds for disciplinary action existed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where the period of employment stated in a career certificate differs from the period of coverage stated in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate, and there is only a suspicion of a special relationship with the company’s representative, can the employer conclusively deem the career certificate submitted by the employee to be false and rely on it as a ground for disciplinary dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held as follows: the employer could not immediately regard the career history as false solely because the period in the career certificate differed from the period in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate; even if the employee and the CEO of ○○ Metal had once been relatives, once that relationship had ended, the entire career could not be treated as false merely because there had been a special relationship; the corporate registry of ○○ Metal showed that the employee had been registered as a director of ○○ Metal for a certain period, which was partially consistent with the employee’s statements; and, in light of the financial information, share transfer agreement, and deposit slips, ○○ Metal had been in poor financial condition and it was confirmed that the employee had received a substantial amount (71 million KRW) from ○○ Metal.
Accordingly, it was difficult to find that the employee had submitted a false career certificate, and since the materials submitted by the employer alone were insufficient to conclude that the career certificate was false, the Commission determined that no grounds for disciplinary action existed.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held to constitute unfair dismissal due to the absence of grounds for disciplinary action.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should, as far as possible, obtain and retain objective materials that can support their career history, such as career certificates, National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificates, and corporate registry extracts. Even if the period or form of employment does not match 100%, if various materials—such as actual work performed, equity relationships, and records of remuneration received—mutually corroborate one another, the Labor Relations Commission will be reluctant to find the career history to be false.
Furthermore, even where an employer imposes disciplinary dismissal on the ground of false career history, mere suspicion or partial discrepancy will rarely amount to a reason “so serious that, according to social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained,” as required by Supreme Court precedent. Employees should actively consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, by making use of this line of case law.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important, already at the recruitment stage, to require both a career certificate and a National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate, and to clearly explain the role of each document (e.g., supplementing the period of employment and job duties) in order to prevent future disputes. To rely on false career statements as grounds for disciplinary action, the employer must be able to prove that “had the truth been known, the employee would not have been hired, or would not have been hired on the same terms,” and that the false career history in fact had a significant impact on personnel and remuneration decisions.
In addition, when imposing discipline for false resumes or misrepresentation of career history, employers must, in line with the standards required by the Supreme Court, comprehensively consider the period of service after hiring, work performance, and the extent of damage to the relationship of trust. Employers should bear in mind that if they hastily proceed to disciplinary dismissal at the mere stage of suspicion, there is a high risk of receiving an unfair dismissal decision, as in this case.
This decision illustrates, in the context of unfair dismissal, that the existence of grounds for disciplinary action is examined very strictly even in cases involving false resumes or misrepresentation of career history. From the Labor Relations Commission stage onward, employers should organize the facts and establish sound HR and labor-management practices with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, who have a thorough understanding of the relevant case law and legal principles.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The mere fact that the period of employment stated in ○○ Metal’s career certificate differed from the period of coverage at that workplace shown in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate did not, by itself, allow a conclusion that the career certificate for ○○ Metal submitted by the employee was false; ② the employee and CEO Jeong ○○ had not been relatives or in a similar relationship since 24 October 2014, and the career certificate could not be deemed false solely because the employee and the CEO of ○○ Metal had a special relationship; ③ the entries in the certified copy of the corporate registry of ○○ Metal also showed that the employee had been registered as a director of ○○ Metal for a certain period, which partially matched the applicant’s statements; and ④ in light of ○○ Metal’s financial information, the share transfer agreement, and the ○○ Metal Park Seong-wan deposit slip, ○○ Metal had been in poor financial condition and it was recognized that the employee had received 71 million KRW from ○○ Metal around April 2022.
In view of the above, it was difficult to find that the employee had submitted a false career certificate, and since it was also difficult to recognize, based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, that the career certificate of ○○ Metal was false, the Commission determined that no grounds for disciplinary action existed. Accordingly, there was no need to further examine whether the level of discipline and the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The mere fact that the period of employment stated in ○○ Metal’s career certificate differed from the period of coverage at that workplace shown in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate did not, by itself, allow a conclusion that the career certificate for ○○ Metal submitted by the employee was false; ② the employee and CEO Jeong ○○ had not been relatives or in a similar relationship since 24 October 2014, and the career certificate could not be deemed false solely because the employee and the CEO of ○○ Metal had a special relationship; ③ the entries in the certified copy of the corporate registry of ○○ Metal also showed that the employee had been registered as a director of ○○ Metal for a certain period, which partially matched the applicant’s statements; and ④ in light of ○○ Metal’s financial information, the share transfer agreement, and the ○○ Metal Park Seong-wan deposit slip, ○○ Metal had been in poor financial condition and it was recognized that the employee had received 71 million KRW from ○○ Metal around April 2022.
Accordingly, it was difficult to find that the employee had submitted a false career certificate, and since it was also difficult to recognize, based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, that the career certificate of ○○ Metal was false, the Commission determined that no grounds for disciplinary action existed. Therefore, there was no need to further examine whether the level of discipline and the disciplinary procedures were lawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: - · Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, suspicion of false career history (discrepancy between career certificate and health insurance records), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Reasonableness of Refusal to Renew (52-Point Performance Evaluation at Government Residence)”’, in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to suspicion of false career history (discrepancy between career certificate and health insurance records) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Suspicion of False Career History (Discrepancy Between Career Certificate and Health Insurance Records).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
[Case Information]
Decision body: Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission
2025Buhae9021 ○ ○ ○ Application for Remedy for Unfair Dismissal
Decision date: 2025.12.11 · Result: Employee’s claim fully upheld
Key issues summarized:
① The mere fact that the period of employment stated in the career certificate issued by ○○ Metal differed from the period of coverage at the same workplace shown in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate did not, by itself, allow a conclusion that the career certificate submitted by the employee was false;
② The employee and CEO Jeong ○○ had not been relatives or in a similar relationship since 24 October 2014, and the mere fact that the employee and the CEO of ○○ Metal had once had a special relationship did not suffice to deem the career certificate false;
③ The corporate registry of ○○ Metal…
1. Legal Implications
Ⅰ. Case Overview
In this case, the company imposed disciplinary dismissal on the ground that the career certificate for ○○ Metal submitted by the employee at the time of hiring was false. The employee filed an application with the Labor Relations Commission, claiming unfair dismissal.
The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission examined, in a comprehensive manner, the discrepancy between the period of employment stated in the career certificate and the period of coverage in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate, the existence of any kinship or similar relationship, and the corporate registry and financial data, and on that basis determined whether the grounds for disciplinary action existed.
Ⅱ. Summary of Issues
The issue in this case is:
“Where the period of employment stated in a career certificate differs from the period of coverage stated in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate, and there is only a suspicion of a special relationship with the company’s representative, can the employer conclusively deem the career certificate submitted by the employee to be false and rely on it as a ground for disciplinary dismissal?”
Ⅲ. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
The decision panel in this case held as follows: the employer could not immediately regard the career history as false solely because the period in the career certificate differed from the period in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate; even if the employee and the CEO of ○○ Metal had once been relatives, once that relationship had ended, the entire career could not be treated as false merely because there had been a special relationship; the corporate registry of ○○ Metal showed that the employee had been registered as a director of ○○ Metal for a certain period, which was partially consistent with the employee’s statements; and, in light of the financial information, share transfer agreement, and deposit slips, ○○ Metal had been in poor financial condition and it was confirmed that the employee had received a substantial amount (71 million KRW) from ○○ Metal.
Accordingly, it was difficult to find that the employee had submitted a false career certificate, and since the materials submitted by the employer alone were insufficient to conclude that the career certificate was false, the Commission determined that no grounds for disciplinary action existed.
The dismissal in this case was therefore held to constitute unfair dismissal due to the absence of grounds for disciplinary action.
Ⅳ. Practical Points (From the Employee’s Perspective)
Employees should, as far as possible, obtain and retain objective materials that can support their career history, such as career certificates, National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificates, and corporate registry extracts. Even if the period or form of employment does not match 100%, if various materials—such as actual work performed, equity relationships, and records of remuneration received—mutually corroborate one another, the Labor Relations Commission will be reluctant to find the career history to be false.
Furthermore, even where an employer imposes disciplinary dismissal on the ground of false career history, mere suspicion or partial discrepancy will rarely amount to a reason “so serious that, according to social norms, the employment relationship cannot be maintained,” as required by Supreme Court precedent. Employees should actively consider filing an application for remedy for unfair dismissal, together with experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, by making use of this line of case law.
Ⅴ. Practical Points (From the Employer’s Perspective)
From the employer’s standpoint, it is important, already at the recruitment stage, to require both a career certificate and a National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate, and to clearly explain the role of each document (e.g., supplementing the period of employment and job duties) in order to prevent future disputes. To rely on false career statements as grounds for disciplinary action, the employer must be able to prove that “had the truth been known, the employee would not have been hired, or would not have been hired on the same terms,” and that the false career history in fact had a significant impact on personnel and remuneration decisions.
In addition, when imposing discipline for false resumes or misrepresentation of career history, employers must, in line with the standards required by the Supreme Court, comprehensively consider the period of service after hiring, work performance, and the extent of damage to the relationship of trust. Employers should bear in mind that if they hastily proceed to disciplinary dismissal at the mere stage of suspicion, there is a high risk of receiving an unfair dismissal decision, as in this case.
This decision illustrates, in the context of unfair dismissal, that the existence of grounds for disciplinary action is examined very strictly even in cases involving false resumes or misrepresentation of career history. From the Labor Relations Commission stage onward, employers should organize the facts and establish sound HR and labor-management practices with the assistance of experts such as Labor Law Firm Law&, who have a thorough understanding of the relevant case law and legal principles.
2. Matters Decided
A. Case Overview and Procedural History
① The mere fact that the period of employment stated in ○○ Metal’s career certificate differed from the period of coverage at that workplace shown in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate did not, by itself, allow a conclusion that the career certificate for ○○ Metal submitted by the employee was false; ② the employee and CEO Jeong ○○ had not been relatives or in a similar relationship since 24 October 2014, and the career certificate could not be deemed false solely because the employee and the CEO of ○○ Metal had a special relationship; ③ the entries in the certified copy of the corporate registry of ○○ Metal also showed that the employee had been registered as a director of ○○ Metal for a certain period, which partially matched the applicant’s statements; and ④ in light of ○○ Metal’s financial information, the share transfer agreement, and the ○○ Metal Park Seong-wan deposit slip, ○○ Metal had been in poor financial condition and it was recognized that the employee had received 71 million KRW from ○○ Metal around April 2022.
In view of the above, it was difficult to find that the employee had submitted a false career certificate, and since it was also difficult to recognize, based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, that the career certificate of ○○ Metal was false, the Commission determined that no grounds for disciplinary action existed. Accordingly, there was no need to further examine whether the level of discipline and the disciplinary procedures were lawful.
3. Summary of the Decision
A. Summary of the Labor Relations Commission’s Reasoning
① The mere fact that the period of employment stated in ○○ Metal’s career certificate differed from the period of coverage at that workplace shown in the National Health Insurance qualification acquisition and loss certificate did not, by itself, allow a conclusion that the career certificate for ○○ Metal submitted by the employee was false; ② the employee and CEO Jeong ○○ had not been relatives or in a similar relationship since 24 October 2014, and the career certificate could not be deemed false solely because the employee and the CEO of ○○ Metal had a special relationship; ③ the entries in the certified copy of the corporate registry of ○○ Metal also showed that the employee had been registered as a director of ○○ Metal for a certain period, which partially matched the applicant’s statements; and ④ in light of ○○ Metal’s financial information, the share transfer agreement, and the ○○ Metal Park Seong-wan deposit slip, ○○ Metal had been in poor financial condition and it was recognized that the employee had received 71 million KRW from ○○ Metal around April 2022.
Accordingly, it was difficult to find that the employee had submitted a false career certificate, and since it was also difficult to recognize, based solely on the materials submitted by the employer, that the career certificate of ○○ Metal was false, the Commission determined that no grounds for disciplinary action existed. Therefore, there was no need to further examine whether the level of discipline and the disciplinary procedures were lawful. /
[See More Related Decisions]
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Non-Formation of Hiring Commitment (Absence of Offer Letter)”’ – Decision date: - · Case number: Initial decision upheld
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Failure to Meet Requirements for Redundancy Dismissal (Workout Company)”’
- ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Expression of Intent to Resign (Resignation Remark in Telephone Call)”’
[Tags]
Unfair dismissal, suspicion of false career history (discrepancy between career certificate and health insurance records), disciplinary dismissal, violation of company policy · non-compliance with work instructions, Labor Law Firm Law&, large labor law firm, Samseong-dong labor law firm, Samseong Station labor law firm, Gangnam labor law firm
※ This article is part of the “Unfair Dismissal Decisions” series by Labor Law Firm Law&.
※ You can view the previous article, ‘Unfair Dismissal Decision on “Reasonableness of Refusal to Renew (52-Point Performance Evaluation at Government Residence)”’, in a new window.
※ A list of decisions related to suspicion of false career history (discrepancy between career certificate and health insurance records) can be found under “List of Decisions Related to Suspicion of False Career History (Discrepancy Between Career Certificate and Health Insurance Records).”
※ Korean version of this case: Korean article
