지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 노동법포럼 제24호
- 발행연도
- 2018.7
- 수록면
- 33 - 77 (45page)
- DOI
- 10.46329/LLF.2018.07.24.33
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
To manage an efficient business organization as well as save production and labor cost, businesses largely rely on external labor. External labor is mainly used in the form of in-house subcontracting where a client contractor (hereinafter “client”) facilitates workers of another prime contractor (hereinafter “contractor”) to work at the client’s workplace. The problem, however, is not in contracting out and making use of external labor. The problem is that even though businesses hire workers with rights protected by the Temporary Work Act or the Fixed-term Act, they disguise these workers as contract workers or entrusted workers to avoid being subject to related labor laws. Disguised subcontracting not only raises problems in the context of labor law, it also raises inequity issues. As disguised contracting is subject to criminal punishment under the Temporary Work Act, it is important to distinguish contract work and temporary work prior to punishing the user company.
Unfortunately, the current law does not clearly distinguish the difference between contract work and temporary work. To be sure, progress has been made regarding this issue. As a result, many cases were accumulated and composed together to establish legal principles that provide standards to differentiate contract work and temporary work. In addition, in 2015, the Supreme Court provided a general standard using various cases including the Hyundai Motor case. Despite the provision of the general standard, however, a more explicit standard to differentiate the two works is required for the following reasons: first, the general standard is a mere group of signs drawn from previous cases; second, the general standard does not fully reflect the distinctive features of each respective type of in-house subcontracting; and third, the process of making a comprehensive judgement after individual judgement is very unclear and as a result, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in 2015, judgements among lower courts have remained inconsistent.
Also, the Korean government has been making efforts to address the problem of disguised contracting on industrial sites by referring to the Guidelines on the Judging Standards of Temporary Placement of Workers (April 19, 2007) as outlined in the Reference to Classify Temporary and Contract Work. However, these guidelines do not reflect the general standard set out by the Supreme Court in 2015. This type of miscommunication can hinder the predictability of judgements distinguishing temporary and contract work, and eventually weaken the public’s trust in law. It can also raise doubts on the effect of measures taken to prevent further disguised contracting. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Supreme Court focused on the status of the worker when establishing the classifying standard. Thus, further discussion is necessary to determine the suitability of the standard when applying it to interpret criminal elements related to the violation of the Temporary Work Act.
Based on such research, this article concludes that the current Temporary Work Act should be at the center of establishing the classifying standard. This article also proposes a new standard to distinguish temporary and contract work focusing on the requirements of temporary work under the current Temporary Work Act, as well as the specific contents of the authority to conduct which was developed through the legal principle set out by the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, the current law does not clearly distinguish the difference between contract work and temporary work. To be sure, progress has been made regarding this issue. As a result, many cases were accumulated and composed together to establish legal principles that provide standards to differentiate contract work and temporary work. In addition, in 2015, the Supreme Court provided a general standard using various cases including the Hyundai Motor case. Despite the provision of the general standard, however, a more explicit standard to differentiate the two works is required for the following reasons: first, the general standard is a mere group of signs drawn from previous cases; second, the general standard does not fully reflect the distinctive features of each respective type of in-house subcontracting; and third, the process of making a comprehensive judgement after individual judgement is very unclear and as a result, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in 2015, judgements among lower courts have remained inconsistent.
Also, the Korean government has been making efforts to address the problem of disguised contracting on industrial sites by referring to the Guidelines on the Judging Standards of Temporary Placement of Workers (April 19, 2007) as outlined in the Reference to Classify Temporary and Contract Work. However, these guidelines do not reflect the general standard set out by the Supreme Court in 2015. This type of miscommunication can hinder the predictability of judgements distinguishing temporary and contract work, and eventually weaken the public’s trust in law. It can also raise doubts on the effect of measures taken to prevent further disguised contracting. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Supreme Court focused on the status of the worker when establishing the classifying standard. Thus, further discussion is necessary to determine the suitability of the standard when applying it to interpret criminal elements related to the violation of the Temporary Work Act.
Based on such research, this article concludes that the current Temporary Work Act should be at the center of establishing the classifying standard. This article also proposes a new standard to distinguish temporary and contract work focusing on the requirements of temporary work under the current Temporary Work Act, as well as the specific contents of the authority to conduct which was developed through the legal principle set out by the Supreme Court.
목차
Ⅰ. 노동의 외주화 현상과 규제 법률의 등장
Ⅱ. 파견법 위반죄의 구성요건 분석
Ⅲ. 파견과 도급의 구별기준을 위한 판례의 법리 분석
Ⅳ. 파견과 도급의 구별기준에 대한 성찰
Ⅴ. 파견과 도급의 구별기준의 재정립 가능성
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
파견법위반죄의 구성요건에 대한 연구 : 파견과 도급의 구별기준을 중심으로
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2016 .12
-
한·중 근로자파견제도에 관한 소고
법학연구
2019 .01
-
파견법상 근로자파견 대가에 관한 연구
산업관계연구
2023 .06
-
현행법상 파견근로자 보호에 관한 법적 쟁점과 개선방안
강원법학
2017 .10
-
독일 파견법상 파견근로의 개념과 판단 법리
노동법논총
2024 .12
-
파견법 적용 요건으로서의 ‘경제활동성’
노동법학
2024 .06
-
파견노동 및 현행 파견법의 문제점과 법적 과제
민주법학
2016 .11
-
｢派遣｣という働き方の日本的特徴と課題
일본근대학연구
2016 .01
-
한국의 파견근로자에 관한 차별시정제도와 사례
노동법논총
2017 .12
-
자동차 제조 간접공정에서 파견과 도급의 구별 ―대상판결: 서울고등법원 2022. 1. 28. 선고 2020나 2008508, 2020나2008515(병합) 판결―
노동법포럼
2022 .11
-
철강산업에서의 전산(MES)시스템을 통한 작업수행과 원청(도급업체)의 지시권 : 대상판결: 광주고등법원 2016. 8. 17. 선고 2013나1128 판결을 중심으로
노동법논총
2017 .08
-
파견근로자의 직접고용 근로자 전환시 근로조건 결정 기준
노동법논총
2024 .12
-
노동 외주화에 대한 법정책적 대응방안
노동법학
2017 .06
-
사내 하도급에 관한 판례법리의 내용과 문제점 : 창원지방법원 2014.12.4. 선고 2013가합3781 판결을 중심으로
노동법논총
2015 .12
-
가설건축물 관련 행정소송의 주요 쟁점과 입법론
행정판례연구
2023 .06
-
현행 ‘근로자파견 판단기준 지침’의 개선방안 연구 ―자동차 산업의 불법파견 판결 적용 사례를 중심으로―
노동법포럼
2022 .11
-
중소 제조사업체의 파견관계 특성과 파견사업체의 이윤전략 - 안산ㆍ시흥스마트허브 지역내 전자, 기계업종을 중심으로 -
산업노동연구
2019 .01
-
KTX 대법원 판결과 파견과 도급의 구별기준
노동법학
2015 .12
-
전문직 비정규직이 팀 내 수용 및 창의적 팀 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 탐색적 연구: 경계 없는 비정규직과 과도기적 비정규직을 중심으로
아태비즈니스연구
2020 .01
-
‘근로자파견성’ 판단 기준 재정립의 모색 - 판례에 대한 분석을 중심으로 -
노동법포럼
2019 .07
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0