KTX 대법원 판결과 파견과 도급의 구별기준
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 조경배 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-08-11T20:47:53Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-08-11T20:47:53Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2021-06-17 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1229-2141 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/sch/handle/2021.sw.sch/11116 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The Supreme Court’s ruling on KTX case left a new precedent by presenting generalizations about the distinction between temporary work and subcontracting other than the 2010 Hyundai Motor case. But this judgment is revealed by a number of problems in relation to the normative assessment of the evaluation factors and facts to distinguish between temporary work and subcontracting by taking no full account of the attribute of the labor subcontracting or the characteristics of exclusive in-house subcontracting. Whether binding order has been done or not is a basic evaluation factor to distinguish between temporary work and subcontracting. However, when it is determined with an emphasis on the exercise of direct and concrete orders without comprehensive understanding, the advantage of the synthetic judgment method considering the attribute of the labor subcontracting or characteristics of in-house subcontracting as a whole can’t be taken. In the case of exclusive in-house subcontractors to trade with only one prime contract who has absolute dominance over themselves such as in Korea and Japan, the independence itself as a business owner is always subject to doubt. In this regard, it is bound to be limited to apply without making any adjustments the criterion of distinction between temporary work and subcontracting adopted in Germany where the original employer at least win its independence as the employer. Therefore, in exclusive in-house subcontracting, it is necessary to consider together the factors to assess the independence of business management and the factors to assess the independence of the work performed. In addition, the exercise of discretion in personnel and labor management of five evaluation factors specified in KTX ruling is inadequate as evaluation factor to distinguish between temporary work and subcontracting because the factor is commonly required for temporary work and subcontracting. | - |
dc.language | 한국어 | - |
dc.language.iso | ko | - |
dc.publisher | 한국노동법학회 | - |
dc.title | KTX 대법원 판결과 파견과 도급의 구별기준 | - |
dc.title.alternative | KTX Case and Criteria to Distinguish between Temporary Work and Subcontracting | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 조경배 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | 노동법학, no.56, pp.311 - 343 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | 노동법학 | - |
dc.citation.title | 노동법학 | - |
dc.citation.number | 56 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 311 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 343 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
dc.identifier.kciid | ART002056712 | - |
dc.description.journalClass | 2 | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | kci | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | KTX 사건 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 전속적 사내하청 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 파견과 도급의 구별기준 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 사업경영상의 독립성 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | KTX case | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | exclusive in-house subcontracting | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | the criterion of distinction between temporary work and subcontracting | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | the independence of business management | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
(31538) 22, Soonchunhyang-ro, Asan-si, Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea+82-41-530-1114
COPYRIGHT 2021 by SOONCHUNHYANG UNIVERSITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.