본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

파견과 도급의 구별에 관한 법리 — 대법원 2010.7.22. 선고 2008두4367 판결 및 2012.2.23. 선고 2011두7076 판결을 중심으로 —

A Study on Differentiation between Dispatch Contracts and Subcontracts

0

조회

0

다운로드

27

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

This paper thoroughly examines legal logics on differentiation of dispatch contracts and subcontracts reflecting a recent decision of the Supreme Court on Hyundai Motor Company case which acknowledged that workers who worked for subcontractor in the employer(user)'s workplace as a servant based on a subcontract agreement or a mandatory contract between companies are employees under a worker dispatch contract for the first time in history. In regard to defining the type of so-called in-house subcontracting, distinction of dispatch contracts and subcontracts lies on whether the subcontractor bears partial defect liability on the basis of clear legal obligations. Similarly, dispatch contracts and mandate contracts should be distinguished by whether the subcontractor independently takes command of its employees. Labor law has an important bearing on corporations in view of their needs to promptly respond to rapidly changing economic environment and to increase competitiveness in market. Therefore, applying laws based on specific phrase or expression for strengthening particular legal relations without considering context of actual matters can bring about ill effects that also exert a negative influence on labor market as a whole. The body of this paper consists of four parts. In chapter Ⅱ, the significance of in-house subcontracting and related issues in labor law were discussed in context with management rationalization, subcontracts and indirect employment. Chapter Ⅲ focused on defining legal criterion to distinguish dispatch contracts and subcontracts presenting a methodological principle which stressed the importance of the substance of the contract. Also the purpose of the Dispatched Workers Act as well as definition of dispatch and normative meanings of employer's command were discussed in chapter Ⅲ. In chapter Ⅳ, general analysis and assessment on the in-house subcontract of Hyundai Motor Company in question were presented.

Abstract

This paper thoroughly examines legal logics on differentiation of dispatch contracts and subcontracts reflecting a recent decision of the Supreme Court on Hyundai Motor Company case which acknowledged that workers who worked for subcontractor in the employer(user)'s workplace as a servant based on a subcontract agreement or a mandatory contract between companies are employees under a worker dispatch contract for the first time in history. In regard to defining the type of so-called in-house subcontracting, distinction of dispatch contracts and subcontracts lies on whether the subcontractor bears partial defect liability on the basis of clear legal obligations. Similarly, dispatch contracts and mandate contracts should be distinguished by whether the subcontractor independently takes command of its employees. Labor law has an important bearing on corporations in view of their needs to promptly respond to rapidly changing economic environment and to increase competitiveness in market. Therefore, applying laws based on specific phrase or expression for strengthening particular legal relations without considering context of actual matters can bring about ill effects that also exert a negative influence on labor market as a whole. The body of this paper consists of four parts. In chapter Ⅱ, the significance of in-house subcontracting and related issues in labor law were discussed in context with management rationalization, subcontracts and indirect employment. Chapter Ⅲ focused on defining legal criterion to distinguish dispatch contracts and subcontracts presenting a methodological principle which stressed the importance of the substance of the contract. Also the purpose of the Dispatched Workers Act as well as definition of dispatch and normative meanings of employer's command were discussed in chapter Ⅲ. In chapter Ⅳ, general analysis and assessment on the in-house subcontract of Hyundai Motor Company in question were presented.

참고문헌 (19)

  1. 강성태, "사내하도급과 근로계약관계 - 현대자동차 판결의 검토를 중심으로 -", 사법, 1(15), pp.3~35 (2011), 사법발전재단
  2. 조선업종 사내하도급 실태조사 보고서, "고용노동부", ~ (2011)
  3. 김형배, "使用者責任과 判例 -比較法的 視覺에서-", 고려법학, (48), pp.1~35 (2007), 법학연구원
  4. 남기윤, "유형론적 방법론과 회사법의 신이론" (1999)
  5. 도재형, "사내하도급 관계에서 근로자파견의 인정 기준", 법조, 60(8), pp.131~174 (2011), 법조협회
  6. 박종희, "사내하도급의 불법파견에 관한 법적 문제, 독일에서의 논의를 중심으로", 고려법학, 47 (2006)
  7. 외국의 사내하도급 파견 현황 및 제도 실태조사, "박지순", 고용노동부, ~ (2010)
  8. 조경배, "현대자동차 사내협력업체 불법파견(위장도급) 사건 판례 평석 ― 대법원 2010. 7. 22. 선고 2008두4367 판결 ―", 노동법연구, (29), pp.95~118 (2010), 서울대학교노동법연구회
  9. 鎌田耕一, "契約勞働の硏究" (2001), 多賀出版
  10. Dauner-Lieb, "Der innerbetriebliche Fremdfirmeneinsatz auf Dienst- oder Werkvertragsbasis im Spannungsfeld zwischen AÜG und BetrVG", NZA, pp.817~ (1992)
  11. Henssler, Aufspaltung, "Ausgleiderung und Fremdvergabe", NZA, pp.294~ (1994)
  12. Leitner, "Abgrenzung zwischen Werkvertrag und Arbeitnehmerüberlassung", NZA, pp.293~ (1991)
  13. "Münchner Handbuch zum Arbeitsrecht, Band II, 3. Aufl" (2009)
  14. Schaller, "Arbeitnehmerüberlassung: Begriff, Voraussetzung und besondere Rechtsprobleme", DStR, pp.469~ (1996)
  15. Schaub, "Beilage zu BB" (1993)
  16. Schaub, "Arbeitsrechts-Handbuch, 13. Aufl" (2011)
  17. Schüren, "Entstehen eines Arbeitsverhältnisses durch Arbeit- nehmerüberlassung", RdA, pp.107~ (2002)
  18. Schüren, "Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz, Kommentar, 3. Aufl" (2009)
  19. Tschöpe, "Anwalts Handbuch Arbeitsrecht, 7. Aufl" (2011)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)