NDSL 448 Link page에서 [원문보기] 버튼을 클릭하세요.
[해외논문]
Das Vorliegen eines Rechtsbed�rfnisses bzw. eines Klageinteresses ist Sachentscheidungsvoraussetzung jeder Klage und Entscheidung der Arbeitskommission �ber die Wirksamkeit der K�ndigung und/oder einer Disziplinarma�nahme. Hiermit ergibt sich die Frage, ob eine Rechtsbed�rfnisse bzw. ein Klageinteresse anerkannt werden kann, obwohl das Arbeitsverh�ltnis w�hrend des Verwaltungsstreitverfahren bzw. des Rechtsbehelf bei Arbeitskommission aufgel�st wird. Ein Rechtsbed�rfnis bzw. ein Klageinteresse wurde weder vom Rechtsprechung, noch von Entscheidungen der Arbeitskommission bejaht. Die Rechtsprechung und die Arbeitskommission geht davon aus, dass das Rechtsbef�rfnis bzw. das Klageinteresse die Weiterbesch�ftigungsm�glicht des Arbeitsnehmers voraussetzt. Also das Rechtsbef�rfnis bzw. Klageinteresse kann nicht anerkannt werden, wenn die Weiterbesch�ftigungsm�glichkeit durch die Aufl�sung des Arbeitsverh�ltnisses nicht vorliegt. Die Rechtsprechung und die Entscheidungen von Arbeitskommissin wird in der Literatur kritisiert, weil der Ansatz der Rechtsprechung und der Arbeitskommission ungeeignet zur Verneinung eines Rechtsbef�rfnisses bzw. eines Klageinteresses ist. Die Anordnung der Wiedereinstellung und der Auszahlung von Lohn f�r die Zeit der Verwaltungsstreitverfahren bzw. des Rechtsbehelf bei Arbeitskommisssion bei einer rechtswidrigen K�ndigung haben anderen Rechtsgrundlagen und Zwecken. W�hrend die Anordnung der Widereinstellung sich nach Zukunft richtet, leitet sich die Anordung des Lohnzahlung von streitig bestehenden Arbeitsverh�ltnisses in der Vergangenheit ab. Als Ergebnis dieser Untersuchung kann festgehalten werden, dass ein Rechtsbed�rfnis bzw. ein Klageinteresse unabh�ngig von Aufl�sung des Arbeitsverh�ltnisses anerkannt werden soll.
[국내 학위논문]
[국내논문]
[국내논문]
[국내논문]
& & 이 글에서는 최근의 한 사례(D교통사건)를 중심으로 하여 노동위원회의 부당해고 구제명령으로서 임금상당액 지급명령과, 임금상당액 지급명령을 이행하지 않은 경우 부과될 이행강제금에 관한 몇 가지 문제를 검토하였다. 여기에서는 이행강제금의 성격과 이행강제금 부과처분 취소소송에 대한 일반적인 점들 그리고 임금상당액 지급명령의 근거와 독립적 구제명령으로서의 가능성 및 임금상당액 지급명령 불이행과 이행강제금 부과처분에 관한 논점을 중심으로 하였다.& & 이 연구 결과, 이행강제금 지급명령과 부당해고 구제명령 간의 문제는 상당 부분이 노동위원회의 임금상당액 지급명령에 대한 제도적 미완성(혹은 불비)으로부터 야기된다는 점을 지적하였다.& & 노동위원회는 노동분쟁 해결을 위한 유일한 전문적이고 대안적인 분쟁해결기구로서 노동관계상 중요한 의미를 지니는 기구이다. 노동위원회 판정기능의 발전을 위해서는 현재의 제도로부터 나타나는 여러 가지 한계점을 극복해야 한다.
[해외논문]
The claim for expenses of maintenance has a legal position as a general claim. However, it is necessary to protect the claim specially unlike general claim because it is necessary to maintain the living. The creditor of expenses of maintenance is usual to use compulsory execution if it is not arbitrarily fulfilled. By the way, the effect doesn't go up even if the execution procedure is used. Therefore, the law of domestic proceeding was revised and a new system based on the order of direct performance was introduced in Korea. The necessity of the legislation of the order of direct performance cannot be negative, and will become big help for the accomplishing objective of securing expenses of maintenance. A lot of problems that evade execution of the claim for expenses of maintenance will be canceled for the order of direct performance. I am expecting the order is efficiently a lot.
[해외논문]
Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (the “Subcontracting Act”) was fundamentally enacted to strengthen subcontractor protection, and payment order under the legislation was instituted to provide quick relief to subcontractor injury. However, a remedial order under administrative law demands curing a past violation of a law. It is a specific administrative effect with the intent to restore law and order. Similarly, the payment order should also be interpreted and enforced under the same principle. For violations of Article 4 (Prohibition against Fixing Unreasonable Subcontract Consideration) Section 2 of the Subcontracting Act, the KFTC has in most cases imposed the difference from the previous price as the payment order. However, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that a payment order in the above manner is illegitimate under Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 of the Subcontracting Act. The Supreme Court held that the price that becomes the standard for uniformly reducing the unit price cannot be conclusively found as the fair subcontract price, and, given the nature of violations of the applicable regulation, it is difficult to uniformly calculate the fair subcontract price between the principle contractor and subcontractor. Thus, a more careful examination of the scope of the payment order under the Subcontracting Act is called for. Subcontracting transactions are premised on legal relationships in civil law. Thus, in principle, the payment order under the Subcontracting Act should be the difference from the fair price had there been no violation. Of the specific acts of violation spelled out in Article 4 Section 2 of the Subcontracting Act, for those acts for which it is not clear what the fair price is given the wording of the law, and, those acts for which it is not easy to conclude that the price would have been found to be the previous price even if there was no violation, the payment order should not be the difference from the previous price. Applying this principle, in the case of Article 4 Section 2 of the Subcontracting Act, I believe a payment order in the above manner which orders paying the difference from the previous price is viable given the following: (1) by allocating a certain amount, the wording of the law in Clause 2 leaves room to consider the price before reduction as the fair price, (2) assuming cases in which there is no discriminatory treatment, it is highly likely that the previous transaction terms remain the same given the wording of the law in Clause 3, (3) there is room to consider the aggregate amount of direct construction costs as the fair price given the wording of the law in Clause 6, and (4) there is room to consider the lowest bid price as the fair price given the wording of the law in Clause 7. On the other hand, for the other acts under Article 4 Section 2, I do not believe that a payment order for the difference from the previous price would be allowed because the law does not make clear what a fair price is, and, even if there was no violation, it is difficult to conclude that the price would have been determined to be the previous price. Meanwhile, some might say that in these cases, the KFTC could order payment by arbitrarily calculating the “fair price.” However, that would not be appropriate under the current law interpretation. This is because there are almost no cases in which the KFTC has arbitrarily ruled on the fair price in its interpretation and enforcement of the MRFTA, and, in cases of acts of unfair support under MRFTA, in contrast to various evidence for what constitutes a “fair price” under legislation and related public announcements, tax law, etc., Article 4 of the Subcontracting Act does not provide a clear standard for how to calculate the fair price. In the mid to long term, we ultimately need a legislative solution. Under the current law, we must invigorate a punitive compensation system and subcontracting dispute resolution process under the ...
[국내논문]
Recently stand-by credits are using as surety devices in various global business transactions including sale of goods. Stand-by credits have lots of merits but simultaneously have high possibility of improper demand by the beneficiary due to the characteristics of the documents required. So so-called fraud rule has developed as a solution to the improper demand in letter of credit transactions. And the actual way of the fraud rule is the injunction by the competent court. The purpose of this article is to examine the applicability of the injunction in stand-by credit transactions by means of case studies. For this purpose, the author examined the concept of the injunction, necessity of the injunction in stand-by credit transactions and the cases of injunction granted and injunction denied. Firstly, the courts have legal standard of the application of injunction due to the legislation of the relative articles in the United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit and the Uniform Commercial Code. Secondly, the courts have taken a negative attitude granting injunction in order to observe the independence principle. Thirdly, the courts have a tendency to grant injunction when the demand has no conceivable basis and the applicant will suffer irreparable injury without injunction. Finally, like the saying 'prevention is the best cure', the applicant always pays attention with reasonable care before improper demand by the beneficiary.
[해외논문]
Recently stand-by credits are using as surety devices in various global business transactions including sale of goods. Stand-by credits have lots of merits but simultaneously have high possibility of improper demand by the beneficiary due to the characteristics of the documents required. So so-called fraud rule has developed as a solution to the improper demand in letter of credit transactions. And the actual way of the fraud rule is the injunction by the competent court. The purpose of this article is to examine the applicability of the injunction in stand-by credit transactions by means of case studies. For this purpose, the author examined the concept of the injunction, necessity of the injunction in stand-by credit transactions and the cases of injunction granted and injunction denied. Firstly, the courts have legal standard of the application of injunction due to the legislation of the relative articles in the United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit and the Uniform Commercial Code. Secondly, the courts have taken a negative attitude granting injunction in order to observe the independence principle. Thirdly, the courts have a tendency to grant injunction when the demand has no conceivable basis and the applicant will suffer irreparable injury without injunction. Finally, like the saying 'prevention is the best cure', the applicant always pays attention with reasonable care before improper demand by the beneficiary.
[해외논문]
While the purpose of the unfair labor practice remedy system is to form a fair labor relations order that should be established now or in the future, with the constitutional guarantee of the rights of association, collective bargaining, and collective action, the ultimate purpose of collective labor relations is to improve the economic or social status of individual workers. The order for the remedy of unfair labor practice is to restore to the situation where there was no unfair labor practice by excluding the employer’s infringement on the three labor rights. By the way, the term “workers under Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), not the Labor Standards Act,” can be understood to refer to a “semi-paid worker,” considering the Trade Union Act’s definition clause of a worker and the ruling on golf caddies in 1993.In the view of the legislative purpose of the Trade Union Act and the distinctiveness of the concept of a worker under the Trade Union Act, the goal of introducing the concept of unfair labor practice, that the remedies for unfair labor practice were introduced ahead of those for unfair dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial order and its discretionary power, which has the nature of an administrative disposition, and that our Trade Union Act adopts the principle of punishment in tandem with the principle of restoration to the original condition, the possibility that a back-wage payment order might be issued is dependent on the consideration of the purpose of the Trade Union Act, the status of a worker under the Trade Union Act, the objective of the unfair labor remedy system and the role of the Labor Relations Commission, and a range of flexibility of administrative remedies, rather than on whether an applicant satisfies the prescribed requirement as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.A worker, in its purest term under the Trade Union Act, works virtually exclusively for a single employer or under other circumstances and lives on an income equivalent to a wage and needs to be compensated in the event where he or she is not provided with such an income due to a reason attributable to an employer.To relieve the rights infringed by unfair labor practices and restore collective labor relations to a situation free of unfair labor practices, and to recover all legal status that the aggrieved worker might have enjoyed had he or she not suffered disadvantage, the Labor Relations Commission may issue a remedy, ordering the employer to pay the amount of remuneration that the employee could have received in accordance with the terms of contract should the contract not been terminated. If compensation for economic disadvantages (equivalent pay) is not made, the three labor rights would not be properly guaranteed due to repeated dismissals.On the other hand, considering that the order of remedy by the Labor Relations Commission does not have self-executive power by itself as an administrative disposition, but is realized by the actions of the employer, it seems that there is no need to specify the amount of income equivalent to the payment obligation borne by the employer when the Labor Relations Commission issues an order of remedy.
[국내논문]
Propositum consociationis inter Nationes Europae statim ad historiam nos reportat et ad omnes illos homines, philosophos politicosque, qui exoptaverunt Europam coniunctam, a Carolo Magno ad Macchiavelli, a rege Luigi XIV ad Napoleonem. Somnium quod numquam ad effectum perductum est, quia Europa etiam nunc ex Nationum( "Stati" ) multitudine componitur, aliquae recentis creationis, omnes distinctae cultura sua et ratione iuridica sua, quarum quaeque peculiares virtutes singularium differentiumque identitatum nationum( "Stati" ) imitatur. Tamen, inspecta diligentius, talis differentia profunda non est. Principia et praecepta exsistunt, quae semper remanserunt et nunc officium centrale habent in iuridica europea sententia. Ulterior gradus in integrationis et europeae harmoniae itinere factus est recente iudicialium singularium normarum introductione, adhibendarum in omnibus Nationibus ("Stati") partibus Unionis, excepta Danimarca. Aliter ac quod provisum ab aliis praecedentibus Communitatis institutis, etiam ipsa tendentia ad harmoniam et unitatem iudicialiumrationum Europae, iudiciales normae nunc introductae, praesertim Institutum n. 1896, primum iudiciales europeas singulares regulas introducunt, quae in inferiore loco nationum normas collocant adhibendas solum raro et tantum ad complendas europeae disciplinae normarum lacunas. Hae normae pertinent ad instituta de creditorum recuperatione in civili et commerciali re inter Nationes("Stati") Unionis partes. Horum duorum Institutorum ultimum, n. 1896, sumptum in mense dicembri 2006, die 12 dicembri 2008 valuit et nunc intra europeas Nationes("Stati") adhiberi conatur, ad simplificandas et celeriores efficiendas in Unione Europea controversias in civili et commerciali re, praecipue quoad attinet credita non impugnata. Talium Institutorum origo communis est: immo dicere possumus ea se collocare in eiusdem itineris evolutivi ambitu, cum alter alterius logicus progressus esset. Ex Communitatis legislatoris iudicio, talis ratio utilis esse deberet ad favendum creditorum non impugnatorum celeri et efficaci recuperationi, et usu septem modulorum "standard", cum inspectionum facultate ex competentibus iudicibus, et omnium rationum in exsecutione eliminatione. Hoc favere deberet tum creditori qui, cum in difficultate esset ad recuperationem creditorum quae sibi debentur, in discrimen non solvendi venire potest, tum relationibus commercialibus inter singulas Nationes ( "Stati" ). Talia Instituta se interponunt in ambitu coniunctionis cooperationis iudicialis civilis factae introductione Tituli Ⅳ in Amsterdam foedere diei 2 octobris 1997, quod die 1 maio 1999 valuit. Patet talium normarum proprietatem europeam necessariam mutuamque integrationem Institutorum Europae et Nationum("Stati") postulare, etiam quia ipsorum proprietas transnationalis ducit ad duos magni momenti exitus. Horum primus pertinet ad discrepationem quae evenire potest inter Nationum( "Stati" ) normas et Unionis normas. In hoc casu discrepatio resolvi potest pro Unionis normis, etiam si praecedentibus Unionis normas. Deinde, alia incerta circumstantia causari potest prescriptione sua et criteriis interpretationis ideo adhibendis. In adhibendis his institutis, nam, aequalis usus intra Unionem Europeam praestandus erit, cum omnibus differentibus institutis iuridicis singularium Nationum( "Stati" ) Unionis partium.
[국내논문]
Das Vorliegen eines Rechtsbed�rfnisses bzw. eines Klageinteresses ist Sachentscheidungsvoraussetzung jeder Klage und Entscheidung der Arbeitskommission �ber die Wirksamkeit der K�ndigung und/oder einer Disziplinarma�nahme. Hiermit ergibt sich die Frage, ob eine Rechtsbed�rfnisse bzw. ein Klageinteresse anerkannt werden kann, obwohl das Arbeitsverh�ltnis w�hrend des Verwaltungsstreitverfahren bzw. des Rechtsbehelf bei Arbeitskommission aufgel�st wird.Ein Rechtsbed�rfnis bzw. ein Klageinteresse wurde weder vom Rechtsprechung, noch von Entscheidungen der Arbeitskommission bejaht. Die Rechtsprechung und die Arbeitskommission geht davon aus, dass das Rechtsbef�rfnis bzw. das Klageinteresse die Weiterbesch�ftigungsm�glicht des Arbeitsnehmers voraussetzt. Also das Rechtsbef�rfnis bzw. Klageinteresse kann nicht anerkannt werden, wenn die Weiterbesch�ftigungsm�glichkeit durch die Aufl�sung des Arbeitsverh�ltnisses nicht vorliegt. Die Rechtsprechung und die Entscheidungen von Arbeitskommissin wird in der Literatur kritisiert, weil der Ansatz der Rechtsprechung und der Arbeitskommission ungeeignet zur Verneinung eines Rechtsbef�rfnisses bzw. eines Klageinteresses ist.Die Anordnung der Wiedereinstellung und der Auszahlung von Lohn f�r die Zeit der Verwaltungsstreitverfahren bzw. des Rechtsbehelf bei Arbeitskommisssion bei einer rechtswidrigen K�ndigung haben anderen Rechtsgrundlagen und Zwecken. W�hrend die Anordnung der Widereinstellung sich nach Zukunft richtet, leitet sich die Anordung des Lohnzahlung von streitig bestehenden Arbeitsverh�ltnisses in der Vergangenheit ab.Als Ergebnis dieser Untersuchung kann festgehalten werden, dass ein Rechtsbed�rfnis bzw. ein Klageinteresse unabh�ngig von Aufl�sung des Arbeitsverh�ltnisses anerkannt werden soll.
[국내논문]
[국내논문]
공정거래위원회는 지난 8월 16일 하도급대금 직접지급제도 운영지침을 마련하고 시행에 들어갔다. 이에 따라 구청$\cdot$교육청 등 행정기관에서 하도급대금 직접지급 의무를 위반하게 되면 해당 행정기관장이 시정명령을 받게 되며, 발주자의 하도급대금 직접지급의무는 수급사업자의 직접지급요청이 발주자에게 도달한 때를 기준으로 하고, 직접지급요청에 특별한 방식을 요하는 것이 아니라 요청의 존재를 입증할 만한 증거가 있으면 되게 했다. 또 공정거래위원회는 하도급대금의 직접자금에 대한 발주자, 원사업자, 및 수급사업자간의 합의 여부를 판단하는데 있어 3자간의 명시적이고 동시적인 의사합치만이 유효한 것이 아니라 발주자 및 수급사업자가 직접지불에 대한 동의 등 어떤 형식으로든 인식하고 있는 묵시적$\cdot$순차적 합의도 인정하기로 했다.
[해외논문]
The Fair Subcontract Transactions Act in Korea entitles Korea Fair Trade Commission(“KFTC) to order the principal contractors who have violated Articles 4 through 20 to pay subcontract consideration. This is to take measures necessary for preventing recurrence or correcting the relevant violations. It seems that KFTC exercise this payment order in case of violation of Article 4 from about the year 2007. This order is designed to provide the subcontractor with quick and effective means of relief. The order, however, has raised some questions of constitutionality and applicability.Recent Supreme Court cases, for instance 2012Du1555 case and 2013Du19622 well show that legal issues concerning payment order are getting much more complex. In case KFTC considers payment order on violation of Article 4(Prohibition of Fixing Unreasonable subcontract prices), the fair subcontract prices must be calculated prudently. Moreover principal contractors’s defences including set-off should be taken into account for the purpose of harmonizing KFTC’s payment order with decision of civil court.
[국내논문]
If a creditor thinks that its claim is not likely to be disputed by the debtor, and wants to avoid the cost and expense of instituting an ordinary lawsuit, he/she may elect to use the “civil warning procedure” to collect the claim. However, a payment order in the civil warning procedure has only effect to execute the order in civil enforcement procedure. It means that the payment order does not have any res judicata effect, so that it can not bar the creditor or debtor from bringing the same claim in a subsequent action. In this regard, exceptions to the application of res judicata in America need to be explored. In order for a judgment to have res judicata effect in America, the court must find that it satisfies three requirements: (1) a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) identity of parties or their privies, and (3) identity of cause of action. Where these elements are present, res judicata may extend not only to every matter that was determined in the prior lawsuit but to every matter that might have been determined. However, the first requirement is closely scrutinized for the purpose of comparing the effect of a payment order in Korea with res judicata effect of a judgment in USA. In order for a judgment to meet the first requirement mentioned above, the judgment must be valid, final, and on the merits. However, in some situations, additional policies would be damaged were the normal rules of res judicata to apply. This Article will focus on the exceptions to the application of res judicata and show their implications to the effect of the payment order in Korea.
[국내논문]
노동위원회로 하여금 장차 발령할 구제명령에서 그 내용을 구체적으로 특정하도록 유도할 필요성이 있음은 별론으로 하고, 지급의무의 대상이 되는 임금상당액의 액수를 구체적으로 특정하는 대신 ‘이 사건 근로자들에게 승무정지기간 동안 정상적으로 근로를 제공하였다면 받을 수 있었던 임금상당액’으로 규정하였다는 사정만으로 이 사건 구제명령의 내용이 위법하다거나 중대하고 명백한 하자가 있어 무효라고 보기 어렵다.
[국내논문]
It is not easy to resolve private law disputes arising between the transacting parties residing in three different states(Korea, China, and Japan) under today's legal systems. This is because even if a party to a dispute files a suit in its domestic court and wins the trial, the judgment needs to be recognized and enforceable in other states where the other parties reside. However, there is no integrated legal system for such recognition and declaration of enforceability of foreign judgments between the three states today. Since the European Union (EU) has established the integrated civil execution system, useful implications could be found by examining the EU system in place today.The EU has endeavored to establish an EU-level integrated judicial system among member states in the process of its formation and development, and accordingly, it has established an integrated civil execution system in the judicial field. The EU has established the Brussels Regulations (Brussels Convention, Brussels I Regulation, Brussels I Regulation (recast)) and, in addition, enacted the European Enforcement Order Regulation, the European Order for Payment Procedure Regulation, and the European Small Claims Procedure Regulation. The most striking feature of the EU's integrated civil execution proceedings is that they have been developed to continuously simplify and accelerate the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by foreign courts. The EU’s integrated civil execution procedures, particularly the European Order for Payment Procedure, are systems designed to simplify and expedite disputes in civil and commercial cases, which could provide implications in preparing for the similar integrated civil execution procedures between Korea, China, and Japan.
[국내논문]
Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (the “Subcontracting Act”) was fundamentally enacted to strengthen subcontractor protection, and payment order under the legislation was instituted to provide quick relief to subcontractor injury. However, a remedial order under administrative law demands curing a past violation of a law. It is a specific administrative effect with the intent to restore law and order. Similarly, the payment order should also be interpreted and enforced under the same principle.For violations of Article 4 (Prohibition against Fixing Unreasonable Subcontract Consideration) Section 2 of the Subcontracting Act, the KFTC has in most cases imposed the difference from the previous price as the payment order. However, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that a payment order in the above manner is illegitimate under Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 of the Subcontracting Act. The Supreme Court held that the price that becomes the standard for uniformly reducing the unit price cannot be conclusively found as the fair subcontract price, and, given the nature of violations of the applicable regulation, it is difficult to uniformly calculate the fair subcontract price between the principle contractor and subcontractor. Thus, a more careful examination of the scope of the payment order under the Subcontracting Act is called for.Subcontracting transactions are premised on legal relationships in civil law. Thus, in principle, the payment order under the Subcontracting Act should be the difference from the fair price had there been no violation. Of the specific acts of violation spelled out in Article 4 Section 2 of the Subcontracting Act, for those acts for which it is not clear what the fair price is given the wording of the law, and, those acts for which it is not easy to conclude that the price would have been found to be the previous price even if there was no violation, the payment order should not be the difference from the previous price.Applying this principle, in the case of Article 4 Section 2 of the Subcontracting Act, I believe a payment order in the above manner which orders paying the difference from the previous price is viable given the following: (1) by allocating a certain amount, the wording of the law in Clause 2 leaves room to consider the price before reduction as the fair price, (2) assuming cases in which there is no discriminatory treatment, it is highly likely that the previous transaction terms remain the same given the wording of the law in Clause 3, (3) there is room to consider the aggregate amount of direct construction costs as the fair price given the wording of the law in Clause 6, and (4) there is room to consider the lowest bid price as the fair price given the wording of the law in Clause 7. On the other hand, for the other acts under Article 4 Section 2, I do not believe that a payment order for the difference from the previous price would be allowed because the law does not make clear what a fair price is, and, even if there was no violation, it is difficult to conclude that the price would have been determined to be the previous price.Meanwhile, some might say that in these cases, the KFTC could order payment by arbitrarily calculating the “fair price.” However, that would not be appropriate under the current law interpretation. This is because there are almost no cases in which the KFTC has arbitrarily ruled on the fair price in its interpretation and enforcement of the MRFTA, and, in cases of acts of unfair support under MRFTA, in contrast to various evidence for what constitutes a “fair price” under legislation and related public announcements, tax law, etc., Article 4 of the Subcontracting Act does not provide a clear standard for how to calculate the fair price. In the mid to long term, we ultimately need a legislative solution. Under the current law, we must invigorate a punitive compensation system and subcontracting dispute resolution process under the ...
[국내논문]
While the purpose of the unfair labor practice remedy system is to form a fair labor relations order that should be established now or in the future, with the constitutional guarantee of the rights of association, collective bargaining, and collective action, the ultimate purpose of collective labor relations is to improve the economic or social status of individual workers. The order for the remedy of unfair labor practice is to restore to the situation where there was no unfair labor practice by excluding the employer’s infringement on the three labor rights. By the way, the term “workers under Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), not the Labor Standards Act,” can be understood to refer to a “semi-paid worker,” considering the Trade Union Act’s definition clause of a worker and the ruling on golf caddies in 1993.In the view of the legislative purpose of the Trade Union Act and the distinctiveness of the concept of a worker under the Trade Union Act, the goal of introducing the concept of unfair labor practice, that the remedies for unfair labor practice were introduced ahead of those for unfair dismissal, the Labor Relations Commission’s remedial order and its discretionary power, which has the nature of an administrative disposition, and that our Trade Union Act adopts the principle of punishment in tandem with the principle of restoration to the original condition, the possibility that a back-wage payment order might be issued is dependent on the consideration of the purpose of the Trade Union Act, the status of a worker under the Trade Union Act, the objective of the unfair labor remedy system and the role of the Labor Relations Commission, and a range of flexibility of administrative remedies, rather than on whether an applicant satisfies the prescribed requirement as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.A worker, in its purest term under the Trade Union Act, works virtually exclusively for a single employer or under other circumstances and lives on an income equivalent to a wage and needs to be compensated in the event where he or she is not provided with such an income due to a reason attributable to an employer.To relieve the rights infringed by unfair labor practices and restore collective labor relations to a situation free of unfair labor practices, and to recover all legal status that the aggrieved worker might have enjoyed had he or she not suffered disadvantage, the Labor Relations Commission may issue a remedy, ordering the employer to pay the amount of remuneration that the employee could have received in accordance with the terms of contract should the contract not been terminated. If compensation for economic disadvantages (equivalent pay) is not made, the three labor rights would not be properly guaranteed due to repeated dismissals.On the other hand, considering that the order of remedy by the Labor Relations Commission does not have self-executive power by itself as an administrative disposition, but is realized by the actions of the employer, it seems that there is no need to specify the amount of income equivalent to the payment obligation borne by the employer when the Labor Relations Commission issues an order of remedy.
[국내논문]
This paper reviews several subjects on the enforcement levy system and the back-pay order of NLRC for unfair dismissals. Especially focusing on the recent case, it develops some theories about the character of enforcement levy, the imposition of enforcement levy, the revocation suit for the imposition of enforcement levy, the grounds of back-pay order of NLRC and the independence of back-pay order of NLRC.After deliberation, this paper develops the conclusion that the confliction between the enforcement levy system and the back-pay order of NLRC for unfair dismissals is resulted not from the enforcement levy system but from the incompletion of back-pay order of NLRC for unfair dismissals.NLRC is very important system for labor dispute resolution. For the advancement of NLRC's adjudication function, it should overcome various problems by resolving the confliction between the enforcement levy system and the back-pay order of NLRC for unfair dismissals.
[국내논문]
국제비즈니스에서 구상보증제도는 제도적 특성과 그 간편성으로 그 청구과정에서 많은 문제점에 노출되고 있으며, 또한 이와 관련하여 실제로 많은 분쟁이 발생되고 있는 것이 현실이다. 특히 보증은행 또는 그 보증수혜자의 부당한 또는 사기적 청구, 또는 그 과정에서의 사기의 공모 또는 묵인 등이 있다. 한편 특별한 사유없이 보증은행의 지급거절 또는 법원의 지급금지명령을 통하여 거래당사자 간의 분쟁해결의 수단으로도 악용될 수 있다. 본 연구는 구상보증제도상 보증은행의 부당한 지급거절과 그 관련 쟁점에 대해 사례를 중심으로 분석하였다. 또한 본 연구는 비즈니스 관점에서 그 시사점과 적법한 대응방안을 제시하였다.
[국내논문]
민사집행법을 제정하여 시행한 지 벌써 여러 해가 지났지만, 불합리한 규정으로 말미암아 합리적인 집행절차의 진행에 지장이 생기고 있어서 개정이 필요하다고 본다. 민사집행절차는 사권의 종국적인 실현에 관계되는 절차로서, 이 절차에 불합리한 점이 있다는 것은 일반인들의 사권보호에 심각한 지장을 초래할 수 있다는 점에서 대단히 중요하게 고려되어야 할 문제이다. 본고는 다음의 사항을 개정할 것을 제안한다. 첫째, 제56조제2호의 가집행의 선고가 내려진 재판은 불필요한 집행권원으로서 삭제할 것을 주장한다. 1990년 지급명령에 가집행을 붙일 수 없도록 독촉절차를 개정하면서, 이와 관련되는 강제집행절차는 개정하지 않아서 생기게 된 문제이다. 지급명령에 가집행선고를 할 수 있는 길이 봉쇄되어 있는 현행법에서는 불필요한 집행권원이므로 마땅히 삭제되어야 할 규정이다. 둘째, 제17조를 삭제하되, 그 내용을 제16조에 제4항으로서 규정하면서, 집행이의재판의 결과 집행절차를 취소하는 결정이 있으면, 이에 대하여 즉시항고를 할 수 있도록 하는 내용으로 제도를 정비할 필요가 있다. 현행법상 집행이의재판에 불복할 수단을 인정하지 않는 것은 재판을 받을 권리라는 헌법상 기본권에 대한 위반이 될 소지가 있으므로 개정되어야 한다. 신속한 절차의 진행을 위해서 집행이의재판에 대한 불복수단을 허용하지 않는다고 일반적으로 설명하고 있지만, 그 보다 더 중요한 문제는 재판을 받을 권리가 침해당할 수 있다는 점이다. 또 즉시항고는 개별규정이 있을 때에만 허용되는 불복수단인데(제15조제1항), 이를 위반하여 집행취소결정이라는 일반적인 사항에 대하여 즉시항고를 할 수 있도록 한 제17조는 일반원칙에 어긋나는 규정으로서 개정이 있어야 한다. 셋째, 제265조에서 실체법상 사유로 이의신청을 할 수 있도록 한 규정도 개정이 되어야 한다. 절차상 위법을 이유로 하는 이의신청절차에서 실체법상 사유를 주장할 수 있도록 한 것은 원칙에 어긋나는 규정이다. 담보권실행경매신청에 집행권원을 요하지 않는다는 이유 때문에 실체법상 사유를 이의신청의 이유로 인정한다는 통설의 입장은 따르기 어려운 해석론이다. 담보권실행절차와 강제경매절차의 통합을 위하여 두 절차를 하나의 법률에서 규정한 이상, 될 수 있으면 두 절차는 동일한 절차로 진행되도록 할 필요가 있다. 그리고 담보권실행경매개시 결정에 실체법상 사유로 이의신청을 허용하지 않더라도 이후의 절차에서 실체법상 사유로 따질 수 있는 수단이 마련되어 있고, 현행법과 같이 실체법상 사유로 이의신청을 허용하면 재판 상호간의 저촉문제를 야기할 수도 있어서 제도의 개선이 필요하다고 본다. 넷째, 사법보좌관규칙의 규정형식이 너무도 난해하게 되어 있는 점도 문제이다. 민사집행법의 규정에서 사법보좌관의 업무범위에 관한 사항을 직접 규정하도록 관련 규정을 개정할 필요가 있다. 무릇 법규정이란 문자만 해득할 수 있는 사람이면 누구나 쉽게 그 내용을 알 수 있도록 쉽게 표현되어야 하고, 일반인들이 법에 보다 친숙하도록 해야 한다는 입법의 기본원칙에 비추어 보면 난해한 사법보좌관규칙의 개정은 시급한 일이라 할 수 있다.
[국내논문]
The Fair Subcontract Transactions Act in Korea entitles Korea Fair Trade Commission(“KFTC) to order the principal contractors who have violated Articles 4 through 20 to pay subcontract consideration. This is to take measures necessary for preventing recurrence or correcting the relevant violations. It seems that KFTC exercise this payment order in case of violation of Article 4 from about the year 2007. This order is designed to provide the subcontractor with quick and effective means of relief. The order, however, has raised some questions of constitutionality and applicability.Recent Supreme Court cases, for instance 2012Du1555 case and 2013Du19622 well show that legal issues concerning payment order are getting much more complex. In case KFTC considers payment order on violation of Article 4(Prohibition of Fixing Unreasonable subcontract prices), the fair subcontract prices must be calculated prudently. Moreover principal contractors’s defences including set-off should be taken into account for the purpose of harmonizing KFTC’s payment order with decision of civil court.
[해외논문]
In principle, unfair pricing in subcontracting can be regulated by the Subcontracting Act.However, in practice, it is not effectively regulated although unfair pricing by principle contractors is widely speculated. For more effective enforcement of law, in the paper, we critically review the illegality determinations and the corrective measures of the Subcontracting Act. Based on our assessments, we further suggest as follows.First, since the ‘remarkable’ requirement of Article 4 Section 1 was deleted in the 2013 amendment of the Subcontracting Act, considerable low price should be illegal. Second, if the principle contractor decided the price forcibly without sufficient consultation and information, it should be illegal as the price was decided under coercion. Third, a comparative market method should be applied to judge the unfair pricing.Lastly, in the case of an unfair pricing, Korea Fair Trade Commission shall order to discontinue such violation and give an payment or re-determinate the price. If it is hard to find the proper price of Subcontracting, it should be ordered to re-determine the price and report the reason for the price decision.
[국내 학위논문]
A Study on the Implementation System for Child Support
 
 As modern societies in which various values are formed and coexisted, the desire for a happy life based on individual personality formation has grown. As a result, various types of families appeared in society and parents' divorce rates increased. On the other hand, there was a problem of protection of minors, who is a social underprivileged, which is more serious when parents divorced. In a situation where parents divorced, consideration of their children was negligible.and After the divorce, the problem of not receiving child support due to negative feelings appeared. To ensure the payment of child rearing expenses, the government legislated or amended law, but it was a burden to the child support creditors because it spent a lot of money and time, even more it was useless if the obligor of child support Intentionally did not pay the child support money or did not have financial ability. The child support issue is not a personal problem anymore, but a public issue that the nation must be actively intervened and addressed through the transformation of perception. In 2015, The government set up a dedicated agency for the implementation of child support, but due to the lack of authority of the child support agency, the limitations that existed still remained and the expectation of child support creditors collapsed. This paper started with the question of why it is difficult to solve the child support problem despite the efforts of the state.
 First, this study divided the legal process of the guarantee system of child support into two parts; pre and post. and then described the content and problems of the systems and gave suggestions on the improvement direction. Second, This paper also examined the powers and roles of the child support agency in order to find reasons the limitations appeared even though the agency has been established to support these legal procedures. Finally, this paper asserted the introduction of child support subsidy system in order to secure the actual expenses for child support and examined the contents of the bill proposed by the current National Assembly.
 Considering that the child is the future of the country and that the child rearing expenses is directly related to the survival of the child, Laws should be supplemented quickly and it is necessary to introduce as soon as possible the system of child support payments as a universal system.
 
[국내 학위논문]
In modern society, cases of civil disputes are increasing continuously. From the point of view of quickness and economic feasibility, these civil disputes can be said to be too inefficient. Therefore, to correct this inefficiency, the Civil Proceedings Act has fast and cost effective simple proceedings system. Simple proceedings system accounts for a significant portion in civil cases and the role is very important. Therefore, this thesis examined simple proceedings system, a large axis of our civil disputes. The purposes of this thesis are to examine simple proceedings and to find problems and improvements accordingly. First, small sum judgement law and an order for payment, simple proceedings in the Civil Proceedings Act are examined respectively and then similarities and differences of the two systems are found out. And then, simple proceedings system of foreign countries are examined and the characteristics are summarized. The problems of simple proceedings are found out in part and the improvements are presented.
[국내 학위논문]
현행 근로기준법은 부당해고등의 처분을 받은 근로자가 노동위원회를 통한 행정적 구제를 받을 수 있도록 하고 있고, 기간제 및 단시간근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률은 비정규직 근로자가 정규직 근로자에 비해 차별적 처우를 받게 될 경우 차별시정신청을 제기할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 관할 지방노동위원회에서는 당해 구제신청(시정신청)에 대해 조사 및 심문을 통해 부당해고등이 성립한다고 판정하면 사용자에게 구제명령(불합리한 차별적 처우가 있을 경우 시정명령)을 하여야 하고, 그렇지 아니하다고 판정하면 구제신청(시정신청)을 기각하는 결정을 하여야 한다. 지방노동위원회의 판정에 불복하는 자는 중앙노동위원회에 재심을 신청할 수 있고, 중앙노동위원회에의 재심판정에 불복하는 자는 행정소송을 제기할 수 있다.
 그런데 이와 관련한 노동위원회의 구제이익(소송 단계에서는 소의 이익)이 무엇인지에 대하여 노동관계법령에서 정의된 것은 없고, 노동위원회법 제25조의 위임을 받은 노동위원회규칙 제60조 제1항 제6호에서 각하사유 중 하나로 규정하고 있을 뿐이기에 해석론을 통한 그 구체적 범위를 설정하여야 한다.
 특히 쟁점이 되는 부분은 부당해고 기간에 대한 임금상당액 지급명령을 독립적 구제이익으로 인정할 수 있는지 여부인데, 판례는 부당해고 구제신청을 하여 해고의 효력을 다투던 중 근로관계가 적법하게 종료하였다면 신청인에게 구제이익이 없다는 입장을 일관되게 취하고 있어, 근로자로서는 예컨대 부당해고 구제신청 사건 진행 도중 근로계약기간이 만료되는 등으로 근로관계가 종료되는 경우 부당해고 기간 동안의 임금상당액 청구를 위해서는 별도의 민사소송을 다시 제기해야 하는 문제가 발생된다. 심지어 이러한 대법원의 입장을 악용하는 사용자들은 부당해고 구제신청 사건 진행 도중 당해 해고가 위법하다는 판단이 들 경우 해고를 스스로 취소하고 원직복직 발령을 내면서 임금상당액을 별도로 지급하지 않기도 한다. 
 이에 본 논문에서는 구제이익에 대한 기본법리와 함께 사용자가 행한 인사·징계처분 등의 각 유형별 구제이익을 검토하고, 임금상당액 지급명령을 독립적 구제이익으로 인정할 수 있는지 여부에 대한 판례법리를 몇 가지 경우로 나누어 정리하면서 비정규직 차별시정사건과 비교검토 한 후, 판례법리에 대한 비판적 검토를 통해 이에 대한 해석론 및 입법론적 해결방안을 제시하였다.
[국내논문]
Family Litigation Act was revised to enact a child support enforcement order. The order can be issued upon arrearage of at least two times of a child support duties. It can enforce withholding from income of amounts payable as support, without the need for any other judicial or administrative hearing. This enactment was mainly influenced by the similar laws of the U.S.A., U.K., and Japan, the purpose of which is to secure the child support enforcement. I have reviewed the new law from the perspective of labor law, mainly focusing on the protection of the wage claims regulated by the Labor Standards Act. According to the Labor Standards Act, wages should be paid directly in full to workers, and hence the newly revised support order can be a great exception to the principle of direct and full wage payment. Under the current laws, both child support claims and wage payment claims are strongly protected compared with other claims. However, problems can arise when the two specially protected claims conflict with each other. We can even suppose some extreme cases where the parent worker's necessary living expenses surpass the amount of the income deducted by the support order. The relevant laws do not specifically deal with such cases, but they have a maximum ratio limit of wage payment seizure, which limit is translated to be applied to the newly enacted child support order as well, as there is no other special regulations on it. The laws also specially protect the minimum cost of living of a person, but they do not specifically mention any further about the coordination of the parent worker's welfare and the child's necessary support level. I have thought about the coordination of the two sometimes conflicting demands of the specially protected claims of both sides. Child support is primarily the responsibility of the parent workers, but social welfare system should also take part in the child support in cases where the parents alone do not have sufficient financial resources to fulfill the duty. In this regards, we need some more detailed legal guidelines about how and when the social welfare system functions in cases of insufficient implementation of a child support order enforcement. The AFDC(Aid to Families with Dependent Children : AFDC) of the U.S.A. from 1935 to 1996 can be one of such models of legislation.In addition to the coordination of the two specially protected claims, there are other relevant legal matters from the perspective of labor law. I have reviewed such matters as whether to allow any retroactive claim of a child support order, whether to admit a child support claim on retirement benefits, national pension benefits, industrial accident compensation insurance benefits, etc.
[국내 학위논문]
혼인이 부부간 양당사자 사이의 ‘제2의 물결’이라면, 혼인의 해소방법 중의 하나인 이혼은 부부간 양당사자는 물론 그들 사이에서 애정의 결정체로 탄생한 그들의 자녀가 딸려 있는 ‘제3의 물결’에 견주어 볼 만하다. 남녀가 애정으로 만나 서로 사랑의 결실에 터잡아 혼인에 이르게 되고, 가정생활 중 부부 사이의 갈등이 노정되어 결국은 가정의 파탄에 이르게 되면서 그 사이에 태어난 자녀들에까지 이혼의 후유증은 제3의 물결만큼이나 충격을 안겨줄 것이다. 이와 같이 이혼은 혼인의 신분관계 뿐만 아니라 당사자 사이는 물론 자녀들에 대한 부양적 의미의 재산관계까지도 청산하여야 하는 법률행위라고 할 수 있다. 즉, 이혼은 그 행위자체로서 또 다른 법률적 문제를 파생시킬 수 있는 바, 이러한 문제 중의 하나가 바로 ‘자녀의 양육’에 관한 사항이다. 미성년 자녀에 대한 양육 및 양육비 부담은 부부가 혼인 중에는 물론이고, 이혼 후에도 원칙적으로 부모의 의무로서 부부 쌍방 모두가 부담하는 것이다. 그럼에도 우리나라 법제는 입법상의 불비 또는 제도의 미비 등으로 인하여 이혼 당사자에게 이러한 문제를 공평하게 책임지우지 못하는 한계를 보이면서, 결국 당사자 일방의 주도적 양육책임으로 맡겨져 이혼가정 자녀의 양육환경이 침해되는 문제가 제기되어 왔다. 우리나라의 이혼절차에 따른 이혼 후에 이혼의 당사자인 양부모가 자녀를 보호 $교양할 의무를 가지고 부모가 공동으로 친권을 행사함에 있어 공동친권이나 공동양육이 어렵게 되고, 자녀의 건전한 인격발달에 직접적인 영향을 미치며 자녀들에게 많은 난관에 부딪치게 된다. 본 논문은 자녀의 헌법상 행복추구권과 민법상 양육비청구권에 관한 기초이론과 규범체계를 규명하려 시도하여 보았고, 나아가 양육비의 이행확보제도에 관한 외국입법례를 비교법적으로 고찰함으로써 우리나라 법제도상의 문제점과 향후 입법방향의 기본지침을 제시하여 현행 양육비 이행확보제도에 대한 개선책을 제안하려 시도하였다. 먼저 우리 민법상 양육비청구권에 관한 근거규범이 명확하지 않아 학계와 실무계에서 혼란의 여지가 있었는 바, 양육비청구권은 미성년 자녀가 부모에 대하여 양육비의 지급을 구할 권리로서 부양청구권의 한 종류이고, 이러한 법적 성질은 양육친이 비양육친에게 양육비를 청구하는 경우에도 같은 맥락에서 접근하면 된다. 또한 과거의 양육비청구권이라고 하여 손해배상청구권 또는 부당이득청구권 등 부양청구권과 성질이 다른 그 무엇으로 전환된다고 볼 수도 없다. 즉 양육비청구권은 미성년 자녀가 행사하든 양육친이 자신의 이름으로 행사하든, 과거의 양육비이든 장래의 양육비이든 모두 미성년 자녀의 권리인 성질을 본체로 하는 것으로서 개념상 ‘단일한 권리’인 것이다. 양육비청구권의 근거규범에 관한 논의는 다양하지만, 양육비청구권은 민법 제1조의 조리와 판례법 또는 민법 제974조를 청구권근거규범으로 하는 것으로서, 부모의 이혼성립을 분기점으로 해서 서로 다른 별개의 것으로 분할될 수 없는 ‘단일한 권리’라고 하여야 한다. 결론적으로 민법 제837조는 부모의 이혼 등의 상황에서 부모에게 양육비 협의의무를 부과하고 법원의 직권개입을 가능하게 하는 절차규정일 뿐이지, 위 조항에 근거하여 양육비청구권이 발생하는 것은 아니라고 보아야 한다. 그리고 이혼 후 자녀의 양육비 이행확보제도에 관한 비교법적 고찰을 통하여, 외국의 입법례 중 대륙법계의 대표격인 독일, 프랑스의 양육비 이행확보제도를 살펴봤고, 영미법계의 대표로서 미국과 영국의 동 제도를 고찰 한 다음, 우리나라 법제와 매우 유사한 일본의 제도 또한 일견하였다. 이러한 외국의 입법례를 고찰하여 우리의 현행법상 양육비 이행확보제도에 대한 미비점을 보완하여 향후 입법을 통한 제도개선을 꾀하고 그 개선책을 제시하려는 의도에서 비교법적 고찰을 한 것이다. 본 논문이 연구하고자 하는 핵심은, 2009년 양육비의 지급과 관련된 개정 민법과 가사소송법이 새로 마련한 신설 양육비이행확보제도에 관한 법적 검토라고 할 것이다. 따라서 개정 민법은 양육비부담조서제도(민법 제836조의2 제5항)를 신설하였는 바, 이는 가정법원이 양육비 부담에 관한 협의가 이루어진 경우 그 내용을 확인하는 제도로서의 의의와 집행권원의 효력을 부여한 점이 제도의 주안점이라고 할 수 있다. 나아가 개정 가사소송법은 자녀가 보다 간편한 양육비의 이행을 확보하기 위하여 양육비심판에서 재산명시와 조회절차(가사소송법 제48조의2, 3) 등을 신설하였고, 특히 양육비의 직접지급명령제도(동 법 제63조의2)를 도입함으로써 기존에 양육비 이행확보의 어려움을 해결해보고자 한 노력이 역력하다. 이 제도는 양육비채권자가 양육비채무자를 고용하고 있는 소득세원천징수의무자로 하여금 일정기간 계속하여 급여에서 양육비를 공제하여 양육비채권자에게 직접 지급하도록 마련한 강력한 효력을 발생하는 제도이다. 그리고 양육비를 정기적으로 지급하게 하는 경우에 그 이행을 확보하기 위하여 담보제공 및 일시금지급명령제도를 신설하였다(동 법 제63조의3). 이와 같은 개정법의 취지는 이혼 후 자녀와 부모 사이에 감정대립으로 인하여 양육비를 지급하지 않는 자녀의 경제적 어려움을 극복해보고자 마련한 제도의 도입으로 생각된다. 그러나 개정법은 양육비를 이행할 필요성만 앞세운 나머지 민사소송법이나 민사집행법상 기존 강제이행제도와의 충돌이 불가피하여 다소 무리한 입법이란 점도 고려해 보아야 한다. 끝으로 본 논문은 위에서 고찰한 외국의 입법례와 현행법상의 문제점 내지 미비점을 보완하고 새로운 제도의 도입을 위한 양육비 이행확보제도에 관한 개선책을 제안하였다. 주제어: 친권,부양,이혼,양육비, 청구권규범, 양육비산정, 재산명시, 재산조회, 양육비부담조서, 양육비직접지급명령, 담보제공 및 일시금지급명령
Filters
보기형식
정렬순서
포맷
리스트 수