Preparation and Characterization of Hydrophobic Coatings from Carnauba Wax/Lignin Blends

방준식,김정규,김윤진,오정권,여환명,곽효원 한국목재공학회 2022 목재공학 Vol.50 No.3

To realize the infinite possibilities of materials derived from wood, it is necessary to overcome the weak moisture stability of wood. Thus, the development of an eco-friendly hydrophobic coating agent is essential, and of these, woody biomass-based materials are strongly attractive as coatings. In this study, eco-friendly hydrophobic wood coatings were prepared using carnauba wax purified from palm leaves and sprouts, and kraft lignin. The physicochemical properties of the carnauba wax/lignin blends according to the ratio of carnauba wax and lignin were observed by morphology and functional group change. In addition, the coating performance of carnauba wax/lignin blend coatings was confirmed by measuring the contact angle change. It was found that the addition of lignin could accelerate the atomization of wax particles, and that micro-roughness can be realized when applied to the actual wood surface, to ensure that the coating effect over time lasts longer. In addition, it was confirmed that the addition of lignin increases the hydrogen-bond-based interaction with the wood of the coating, thereby providing better coating stability and increasing the durability of the coating solvent under friction. The carnauba wax/lignin paint developed in this way is eco-friendly because all components are made of wood-based raw materials and have an excellent affinity with wood surfaces. Therefore, it is expected to be applicable to the coating process of wood-plastic composites and timber composites.

Super-hydrophobic PVA/Cellulose Nanocrystal Nanofibrous Membrane for Selective Removal of Oily Substances from Water

방준식,박상우,김정규,정민정,정승오,윤희철,곽효원 한국고분자학회 2023 한국고분자학회 학술대회 연구논문 초록집 Vol.48 No.1

최저임금제도의 새로운 구상과 법적 과제

방준식,김근주 노동법이론실무학회 2017 정기학술대회 Vol.2017 No.01

독일 경영조직법상 경영협의회의 기능과 역할

방준식 한국기업법학회 2007 企業法硏究 Vol.21 No.1

Betriebsrat im deutschen BetrVG unterscheidet sich in das System und die Führung vom sog. Betriebsrat im koreanischen Arbeitsrecht. Viele betriebliche Gewerkschaften werden vor kurzem in Korea schwächer. Aus diesem Grund ist das, was sich bekanntmachen mit Betriebsrat im deutschen BetrVG, also bedeutsam. Für deutsche Rechtsordnung ist die Zweispurigkeit im Verhältnis der Arbeitnehmerseite zur Arbeitgeberseite charackteristisch, die das Ergebnis einer mehr als hundert Jahre währenden Rechtsentwicklung ist. Daneben muss der Arbeitgeber innerhalb des Betriebes oder Unternehmens die Beteiligungsrechte der gewälten Arbeitnehmervertreter respektieren. Hierbei handelt es sich um die gestzlich verfasste Repräsentation aller Arbeitnehmer eines Betriebes oder Unternehmens durch den Betriebsrat. Das Mitbestimmungsrecht des Betriebsrats steht jedoch unter dem Vorbehalt einer abschließenen gesetzlichen oder tariflichen Regelung(§ 87 Abs. 1 BetrVG), denn ein laufender Tarifvertrag, der gemäß § 4 Abs. 1 TVG in Bertrieb Anwendung finden, schützt die Arbeitnehmer bereits ausreichend. Verstößt eine Klausel in einer Betriebsvereinbarung gegen den Tarifvorrang des § 77 ⅢBetrVG, so ist sie rechtsunwirksam. Über die Rechtsunwirksamkeit einer gegen § 77 ⅢBetrVG verstoßenden Klausel in einer Betriebsvereinbarung hilft auch das arbeitsrechtliche Günstigkeitsprinzip nicht hinweg, denn das Günstigkeitsprinzip gilt im Verhältnis von Tarifvertrag zur Betriebsvereinbarung nicht, § 77 Ⅲ BetrVG geht § 4 Ⅲ TVG vor.

단체교섭 당사자로서의 사용자와 부당노동행위 주체로서의 사용자 — 대상판례: 현대중공업 사건, 울산지방법원 2018. 4. 12 선고 2017가합20070 판결 —

방준식 한국비교노동법학회 2019 노동법논총 Vol.46 No.-

Employers as unfair labor practices and employers as collective bargaining parties can not be judged to be uniformly the same or different. For example, the type of unfair labor practices can be regarded as the same in relation to the denial of collective bargaining, but it is different in relation to disadvantageous handling or dominant intervention. As with the Supreme Court case, a employer who has been subjected to unfair labor practices or to unfair labor practices involving dominant intervention may become a contractor. However, as in the case of the case, a employer who has committed unfair labor practices to refuse collective bargaining with a subcontracted labor union becomes a subcontractor who is a collective bargaining party under the premise of an employment contract relationship. In conclusion, the conclusion of the ruling that the contractor is not the party to conclude collective bargaining or collective agreement with the subcontractor trade union seems reasonable. In the case of the Supreme Court, in the case of a subcontracted worker, the subcontractor is a person who is in a status of substantial and specific decision of domination. Therefore, the subcontractor is recognized as a employer as an unfair labor practice subject, I did not recognize the business as a employer. As a result, Hyundai Heavy Industries (Hyundai Heavy Industries) is the actual decision maker of the subcontractor, and is not the party to the implied labor contract. In addition to the fact that the contents of the facts are different from one case to another, there is a difference between the subcontractor and the subcontractor in the contents of the subcontractor relationship. Therefore, the employer should not be judged or generalized uniformly. However, the case law suggests ‘implicit labor contract relationship’ in accordance with the expansion of the employer concept in order to judge the employers as collective bargaining parties in the in-house subcontracting relationship. As a collective bargaining agent based on this implicit labor contractual relationship, the employer is distinct from the employer as a subject of unfair labor practice, which is in a status of practical and specific ruling on the subcontractor trade union. This is because those who are in a position of actual or specific ruling can not, of course, become employers in the implicit labor contract relationship. In the end, ‘implicit labor contract relationship’ is related to the expansion of employer concept, and ‘actual and specific status of dominant decision’ should be related to the expansion of the subject of unfair labor practice.

리그닌 나노입자의 첨가가 전기방사된 PVA 나노섬유의 물리화학적 특성에미치는 영향

방준식,정승오,윤희철,진형준,곽효원 한국고분자학회 2023 폴리머 Vol.47 No.6

Among lignocelluloses, a component of wood, lignin is currently in the limelight as a green additive for imparting various functions such as reinforcing the mechanical strength of general-purpose plastics, antioxidation, and UV protection. In this study, lignin nanoparticles (LNPs) with a size of 100-200 nm were prepared using a gamma-valero-lactone-based solvent system. The prepared LNPs were added to poly vinyl alcohol (PVA), and PVA nanofibers incor-porated into the LNPs were successfully prepared through electrospinning. The tensile strength of the PVA/LNPs nanofibers was improved by up to 338% as LNPs were added, and the morphology of the nanofibers was stably main-tained without melting even when heat was applied at 200 ℃, which is above the melting point of the matrix polymer. In addition, the added LNPs effectively prevented the degradation of PVA nanofibers by UV exposure. These results sug-gest that LNPs can be used as natural polymer additives that can provide effects such as thermal and mechanical stability and photolysis resistance to PVA nanofibers.

독일 개정 영업령(GewO)에서의 노동법적 규정에 관한 검토

방준식 한국경영법률학회 2006 經營法律 Vol.16 No.2

【Zusammenfassung】 Eine Studie zu den arbeitsrechtlicher Regelungen in der ändertenen Gewerbeordnung im deutschland Joon-Sik Bang Das Dritter Gesetz zur Änderung der Gewerbeordnung und sonstiger gewerberechtlicher Vorschriften vom 24. 8. 2002 ist jüngst verabs- chiedet, das seit 1. Januar 2003 in Kraft treten ist. Allgmeines Ziel der Änderung der Gewerbeordnung ist die Rechtsbereinigung und Deregulierung. Insbesondere sollen die arbeitsrechtlichen Vorschriften der Gewerbeordnung in sprachlicher und inhaltlicher Hinsicht modernisiert werden. Die vertragliche Inhalt der arbeitsrechtlichen Vorschriften der Gewerbeordnug sind Frei Gestaltung des Arbeitsvertrags(§ 105 GewO), Weisungsrecht der Arbeitgeber(§ 106 GewO). Gemäß § 105 können Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer Abschluss, Inhalt und Form des Arbeitsvertrags frei vereinbaren soweit nicht zwingende gesetzliche Vorschriften, Bestimmungen eines anwendbaren Tarifvertrags oder einer Betriebsvereinbarung entgegenstehen. Soweit die Vertragsbedingungen wesentlich sind, richtet sich ihr Nachweis nach den Bestimmungen des Nachweisgesetzes. Und gemäß § 106 kann der Arbeitgeber Inhalt, Ort und Zeit der Arbeitsleistung nach billigem Ermessen näher bestimmen, soweit diese Arbeitsbedingungen einer Betriebsvereinbarung, eines anwendbaren Tarifvertrags oder gesetzliche verschriften festgelegt sind. Dies gilt auch hinsichtlich der Ordnung und des Verhaltens der Arbeitnehmer im Betrieb. Bei der Ausübung des Ermessens hat der Arbeitgeber auch auf Behinderungen des Arbeitnehmers Rücksicht zu nehmen.

노동조합의 단결활동과 사용자의 지시권

방준식 한국노동사회연구소 2004 노동사회 Vol.90 No.-

교섭단위분리제도의 실제적 운영과 법적 과제 - 부산지방노동위원회 2015. 6. 17. 2015단위19 현대중공업 교섭단위 분리 결정 -

방준식 노동법이론실무학회 2017 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.20

The bargaining unit separation system should not be used as a means of unfair labor practice by the user unilaterally applying for bargaining unit separation. Article 29 (3) (2) of the Trade Union Law, which allows users to apply for separation of bargaining units, should be applied only to the labor union or at least through labor-management agreement. This is because, as an exception to the unification bargaining system, labor unions can obtain autonomous bargaining with the consent of the employer or, if the user does not agree, apply for separation of the bargaining unit so that the constitutionally guaranteed status of the collective bargaining right. As we have seen in the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries, it is not known what the intention of the user actually was in relation to the extension of the collective agreement. However, in order to exclude the possibility of illegal labor by the employer in the future, will be. On the other hand, whether or not it is possible to apply for a reduction on the previous negotiating table should be made possible only by the consent of the labor and management parties in return for respecting the Labor Committee’s decision to separate the bargaining unit. In addition, the decision to separate the bargaining unit should continue to be valid until the next bargaining unit separation decision is made. The Labor Relations Commission will not question the decision to separate the bargaining units and avoid the decision to separate the bargaining units through reconciliation between the parties. Meanwhile, since the Labor Relations Commission is required to make a decision on separation of bargaining units, separation of bargaining units is not possible by labor-management agreement. In addition, it should be said that it is not possible to integrate bargaining units autonomously by labor-management agreement after the labor committee has decided to separate bargaining units. This is because it is a principle that the bargaining units can not be separated by autonomous agreement between labor and management parties. Finally, in order to determine whether or not to separate the bargaining unit, the Labor Relations Commission should analyze the various cases in which it is necessary to consider differences in working conditions, employment type, and bargaining practices in one business or workplace. It is necessary to set clear criteria for the possibility.

취업규칙의 불이익 변경과 사회통념상 합리성

방준식 노동법이론실무학회 2024 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.41

대상판결은 대법원 전원합의체의 대법관 13인 중 7대6이라는 결과로 나온 다수의견으로서 별개의견이 제기한 판례 변경의 필요성에 대한 의문은 여전히 남는 것이지만, 대상판결은 사회통념상 합리성이라는 법원의 사후적 판단에 대해 깊이 있는 고민을 담은 것이고, 법원 스스로 자기반성 및 자기성찰을 판결로 표현한 것이라고 생각한다. 사회통념상 합리성이란 추상적이고 모호한 표현이다. 법원이 이것을 선판단 내지 선이해를 통해 자의적으로 사용할 수는 없다. 왜냐하면 1989년 개정을 통해 근로기준법 제94조 제1항 단서조항을 입법한 입법권자의 취지에 반할 뿐만 아니라, 결과적으로 입법부와 사법부 사이의 ‘권력분립의 원칙’에도 반하기 때문이다. 다만, 다수의견의 집단적 동의권 남용법리에 관해서는 여전히 문제가 있다. 동의하지 않는 근로자 집단에 대해 민법상 신의성실의 원칙이나 권리남용의 원칙과 같은 ‘일반조항으로의 도피’가 우려되기 때문이다. 이러한 ‘일반조항으로의 도피’가 사안에 따라 구체적인 형평성을 보장한다는 점에서는 타당하지만, 일반조항으로의 도피는 결과적으로 법적 불안정성을 야기시키고 노동법의 적용이 아닌 법관의 자의적인 판단을 허용한다는 점에서 바람직하지 않다고 생각한다. 마지막으로, 대상판례의 다수의견이 일견 근로자 보호 차원에서 보면 바람직한 면이 있으나, 별개의견이 제시한 것처럼 새로운 고용환경에 유연하게 대처해야 하는 현실적인 차원에서 보면 부정적인 면도 있을 것이다. 그러나 근로조건의 유연한 조정은 사용자에 의한 일방적인 취업규칙 불이익 변경을 승인함으로써가 아니라, 단체교섭이나 근로자의 이해와 협조를 구하는 등 사용자의 적극적인 설득과 노력을 통해 이루어져야 할 것이다. In social terms, rationality is an abstract and ambiguous expression. The court cannot arbitrarily use this through pre-judgment or pre-understanding. This is because not only does it go against the intent of the legislator who enacted the proviso to Article 94, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act through the 1989 amendment, but it also goes against the ‘principle of separation of powers’ between the legislature and the judiciary. However, there are still problems with the majority opinion's abuse of the right to collective consent. This is because there are concerns about ‘escape to general provisions’ such as the principle of good faith or abuse of rights in civil law for groups of workers who do not agree. Although this 'escape to general provisions' is reasonable in that it guarantees specific fairness depending on the case, escape to general provisions ultimately causes legal instability and allows judges' arbitrary judgment rather than the application of labor law. I don't think it's desirable. Lastly, although the majority opinion in the subject precedent has a desirable aspect from the perspective of worker protection, it may also have a negative aspect from a realistic perspective of having to respond flexibly to the new employment environment, as suggested by the separate opinion. However, flexible adjustment of working conditions should not be achieved through unilateral approval of unfavorable changes to employment rules by the employer, but through active persuasion and efforts by the employer, such as through collective bargaining or seeking understanding and cooperation from workers.