쟁의행위와 민사책임 -판례분석을 중심으로-

신권철 ( Kwon Chul Shin ) 법조협회 2011 法曹 Vol.60 No.6

Article 33 Paragraph (1) of the Constitution provides To enhance working conditions, workers shall have the right to independent association, collective bargaining and collective actions. According to the Constitutional clause, article 3 of Trade union and labor relations adjustment act(hereafter the Act) provides In case where an employer has suffered damages due to collective bargaining or strike(industrial action) under this act, he shall not claim damages against a trade union or workers. The supreme court have decided that illegal strikes should not be recognized as protected by the Act. According the decisions of supreme court, in order that an industrial action by workers can constitute a lawful action, various conditions including the following must be met and satisfied: firstly, the leader of the industrial action must be qualified to a representative of the labor to the collective bargaining; secondly, the purpose of the industrial action is to facilitate self-governing negotiations between labor and management for the improvement of working conditions; thirdly, the industrial action should commence when the employer rejected the collective bargaining in response to the specific requests of workers for the improvement of their working conditions, the procedures required by applicable laws and regulations including the decision by union members on approval or disapproval of the strike must be carried out; and fourthly, the means and way of the industrial action must be harmonious with the employer`s property right and shall not fall under any exercise of violence. Thus, if a strike pursues various purposes and some of which are not justifiable, the legitimacy of the strike itself should be determined by the legitimacy of the essential purpose of the strike and if a labor union violates government procedures, their actions become illegal. This study is dealing with the issues on the civil liability of industrial actions. This study analyzes judicial precedents of the supreme court about illegal strike case. In conclusion, the proposal of this study is that the difference between strike as the right to collective refusal of labor and illegal action attendant upon strike as positive tort should be recognized.

노동관행 소고(小考)

신권철(Shin, Kwon-chul) 한국노동법학회 2013 노동법학 Vol.0 No.48

This article shows that customs in workplace labor relations have a role of creating rights or duties between employer and employee. The basic rights and duties in labor relations are largely based on employment contract, collective agreement or works rules. Nevertheless, labor relations cannot be covered with only the formal written contract or agreement. Due to the dynamics and continuation of labor relations repeated practices become a certain standards of conduct in workplace. This practices is not a normative rule but the de facto repeated acts which can be a standard. This practices in labor relations give employer and employee anticipations and expectations and in certain conditions become the normative rules which regulate the parties concerned. But it can not be legally recognized that the practices in workplace labor relations become normative rules until the courts decides that it should be a legal norm to observe. The supreme court in Korea have decided that the wages which are periodic, even and fixed should be included in the ordinary wages in the Labor Standards Act and the practices that employers exclude them from the ordinary wage (with the allowance of the collective agreement of the trade union) should be violated with the LaborStandards Act. It is important to interpret labor relations disputes in light of the customs in workplace. This article emphasizes that the customs in labor relations can be a normative rules in terms of the expectations of the parties concerned which is not against the law.

하청노동관계의 법적 구성

신권철(Shin, Kwon-Chul) 한국노동법학회 2015 노동법학 Vol.0 No.56

Subcontracting labor brings about double subordination. One is the subordination of subcontractor to principal contractor, the other is the subordination of employee to employer. One of the most important problems in subcontracting labor relation is who is the real employer of the subcontracting employees. Principal contractor is apt to be relieved of employer’s responsibility to subcontracting employee through certain kinds of contract, for example, outside order, outsourcing contract, contract with subsidiary company, in-house subcontract, and etc. Subcontracting labor relation is the chain of the legal relation which is composed of contract and labor in fact. Labor law on the assumption of direct employment relation between labor receiver and laborer is difficult to be applied on labor relation in subcontracting chain. Principal contractor is free from responsibility as a employer in labor law through subcontracting chain. But principal contractor’s exemption from the responsibility is circumscribed by the fact of working under his direction. The Supreme Court’ judicial precedents on subcontracting labor relation give decisions that the person who directs and pays workers substantially is the employer. The Supreme Court decided that if a person employed by a subcontractor but engaged in the business of principal contractor, and working at the business place of principal contractor, to be seen as an employee of principal contractor, the subcontractor must be lacking in its identity or independence as a business owner to the extent of it being regarded as a labor agency for principal contractor and its existence nothing more than a formality. In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the employee in question must be in a subordinate relationship to the principal contractor and receive wages from him in exchange for providing labor to him, thus clearly establishing an implicit labor contract between such employee and the principal contractor. The Supreme Court’s conclusion is to seek the substantial employer under the veil of subcontracting chain and to burden him with liability as a employer.

전교조 사건을 통해 본 법외노조 통보제도의 문제점

신권철(Shin, Kwon-Chul) 한국노동법학회 2015 노동법학 Vol.0 No.55

The Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union(hereafter ‘KTU’) which is the biggest teachers’ trade union in South Korea has been outlawed by the Labor Ministry. In 2013, KTU became illegal union and is facing loss of union’s fundamental rights because the Labor Ministry declare KTU to be outlawed. Under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, only employee is qualified to become union members. But the KTU’s constitution allows dismissed teachers to become KTU members. In 2010, The Labor Ministry ordered KTU to revise KTU’s constitution. But the KTU rejected the Labor Ministry’ order and filed a lawsuit against the Labor Ministry. In Conclusion, KTU lost the suit and the Labor Ministry decide to outlaw(deregister) the KTU on 24 October 2013 on account of KTU’s constitution which permit dismissed teachers to become union members. The KTU filed a lawsuit again and preliminary injunction against the Labor Ministry which is going to deprive KTU of legal status as a union. This article shows that the loss of legal status as a trade union which is notified by administrative body due not to trade union’s actions but to trade union’s being may infringes on freedom of organization for laborer. The administrative notification which outlaw trade union is not based on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act but based on the enforcement regulations. This is not legitimacy and compliance of the Korean Constitution. The outlawry of the trade union possibly goes against labor rights ensured under the Constitution.

법외노조 통보제도

신권철(Shin, Kwon-Chul) 한국노동법학회 2014 노동법학 Vol.0 No.50

The revised Trade Union Act in 1987 abolished the dissolution order system of trade union by administrative authorities and the revised enforcement decree of the Trade Union Act in 1987 established the notification system of outlawed trade union. In terms of trade union control system by administrative authorities, outlawed trade union notification system was substituted for dissolution order of trade union by administrative authorities in 1987. The notification of outlawed trade union by administrative authorities is a declaration which outlaw a registered trade union. In fact the notification deprive a registered trade union of rights to bargain collectively with employers which are the fundamental rights of trade union. The administrative authorities and employers regards the outlawed trade union as an illegitimate entity. The trade union which is notified of outlawry by administrative authorities become a de facto illegal entity without execution. The legal status of outlawed trade union is similar to Homo Sacer in roman law. Homo Sacer who can be killed without punishing the murderer means a person excluded from society and deprived of all rights. The outlawed trade union is outside of law and unprotected by the law. The right of outlawed trade union is deprived of by the administrative notification and outlawed trade union can not use the title of trade union. This article shows that outlawed trade union notification system in Korea plays a role of control system of trade union.

정신질환자의 강제입원과 퇴원

신권철(Shin Kwon-Chul) 한국법학원 2009 저스티스 Vol.- No.113

정신질환자의 무분별한 수용을 막기 위해 각국은 입법을 통해 그 입원요건과 절차를 제한하고 있다. 우리 또한 1995년 정신보건법을 제정하면서 정신질환자의 입원요건과 절차를 규정하였고, 2008년에는 인신보호법을 시행하여 입원한 정신질환자나 그 보호자가 입원의 위법이나 계속입원사유의 소멸을 들어 법원에 직접 퇴원(수용해제)을 청구할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 우리사회의 정신질환자 입원현황을 보면 대체로 강제입원의 성격을 띠며, 주로 가족 또는 행정기관이 보호의무자로 되어 정신질환자의 의사와 무관하게 입원이 결정되는 형태이다. 1995년 정신보건법 제정 이후에도 입원한 정신질환자가 증가하고, 입원기간 또한 장기화되어 있으며, 강제노동이나 퇴원거부 등 인권침해적 사례가 남아 있어 이에 대한 제도적 비판이 가해지고 있다. 이 글의 목적은 최근 제정된 인신보호법(2008년 6월 시행)과 개정된 정신보건법(2009년 3월 시행)상의 정신질환자의 입?퇴원 관련 쟁점을 검토하는 것이다. 연구내용은 먼저 현재의 정신질환자 강제입원실태를 확인하고서 그로부터 발생할 수 있는 문제점과 정신보건법에 관한 국제기준을 살펴본다. 다음으로, 정신보건법과 인신보호법을 개관하고서 정신질환자의 인신보호사건과 관련하여 구체적인 정신질환자 입?퇴원 요건을 정신보건법과 인신보호법을 통합하여 살펴보는 것이다. 결론적으로 정신질환자 입ㆍ퇴원과 관련하여 중요한 것은 ① 의사능력과 경제력이 제한된 정신질환자의 사법서비스 접근권의 관점에서 국가기관인 법원의 후견적 역할을 강조하고, ② 정신질환자의 치료방법으로서 시설수용이 아닌 탈시설화와 지역사회복귀라는 정신보건법의 입법취지를 사회적 통합이라는 사회보장법적 관점에서 이해하며, ③ 정신질환자의 헌법상 기본권인 신체의 자유와 자기결정권을 법치주의에 따른 적법절차의 보장이라는 관점에서 국제연합(UN)이나 세계보건기구(WHO)가 권고하고 있는 국제기준이나 원칙에 따라 정신질환자의 권리와 입원절차를 이해하여 현행 정신보건법과 인신보호법의 해석을 하는 것이다. The Mental Health Acts were legislated against imprudent detention of the people with mental illness in many countries. The republic of Korea legislated the Habeas Corpus Act in 1995 and the Habeas Corpus Act in 2007. The Mental Health Act of Korea provides the criteria and procedure for involuntary admission and discharge. But, the discharge of in-patients with mental illness is decided by hospital or administrative machinery. The Habeas Corpus Act legislated in 2007 provides that when as a result of questioning, the detention(hospitalization) is illegal, or the cause for the detention (hospitalization) disappears, the court shall by way of a decision, release the detainee(in-patient). This study is dealing with the issues of the Mental Health Act and the Habeas Corpus Act on involuntary admission and discharge of the patients with mental illness. In chapter 2, this study shows the present state of involuntary admission and the problem of that in Korea and shows the international guideline of un or who in legislating Mental Health Act or in protecting the right of people with mental illness. In chapter 3, this study surveys the enacting progress, fundamental ideas of the Mental Health Act and the Habeas Corpus Act. In chapter 4, this study points out several controversial issues in habeas corpus case of the people with mental illness - for example, the problem of confirming the dependant, the burden and subject of proof, the requirement for release(discharge), the properties of trial procedure in habeas corpus case- when in-patient with mental illness or his/her guardian apply for the release of in-patient to the court. In conclusion, this study propose an interpretative new viewpoint of the Mental Health Act and the Habeas Corpus Act, that is, ① accessing the community care, solidarity and communication from the viewpoint of social security law, ② understanding the assistant and guardian role of the court to the people with mental illness, ③ extending the definition of due process of law.

정신질환자 개념의 규범적 고찰

신권철 ( Kwon Chul Shin ) 법조협회 2010 法曹 Vol.59 No.5

``정신질환자``라 함은 정신질환을 가진 사람이라는 관념으로 쉽게 이해될 수 있으나, 그것이 일정한 법령의 적용대상이 되는 사람이라는 개념으로 구성될 때에는 그 범주가 불명확하다. 정신질환자는 현행 정신보건법상 강제입원의 대상이 될 수도 있고, 장애인복지법상의 정신적 장애인으로 보호대상이 될 수도 있으며, 의사나 미용사 등 법령상 각종 자격취득을 제한받는 자가 될 수도 있다. 즉, 사회는 법령을 통해 정신질환자를 수용하기도 하고, 복지혜택을 제공하기도 하며, 일정한 자격을 제한하기도 하는데, 각 법령이 요구하는 정신질환자의 범주는 통일되어 있지 않다. 현재 입법예고된 정신보건법 개정안은 정신질환자의 자격취득제한을 완화하고자 ``기능저하 정신질환자``라는 개념을 새로이 도입하면서 기능저하 정신질환자 진단을 받은 자가 신청하여 국가기관인 정신보건심판위원회에서 자격취득이 제한되는 정신질환자를 판정하도록 하고 있다. 이 글은 ``정신질환자`` 개념을 우리 법령들 속에서 다각도로 이해하여야 함을 제시하고자 한다. ``정신질환자``가 우리 사회에서 오랫동안 사회적 배제나 낙인의 대상으로 인식되어 온 경향이 강하고, 실제 정신보건법에 의한 강제입원의 실태나 각종 법령상 자격제한의 태도 또한 이러한 사회적 배제의 인식을 강화시키는 측면이 있다는 점을 이 글에서는 지적하고자 하며, 이러한 사회적 배제를 감소시키고 정신질환자의 사회적 통합이라는 관점에서 정신질환자 개념을 규범적으로 이해해 보고자 한다.

한국 정신보건법의 변화와 그 의미

신권철(Shin, Kwon-Chul) 경희법학연구소 2017 경희법학 Vol.52 No.3

1995년 제정된 정신보건법은 2016년 5월 전면개정되었다. 이름마저 개칭한 정신건강복지법 (정식 명칭은 ‘정신건강증진 및 정신질환자 복지서비스 지원에 관한 법률’이다)은 강제입원 제도의 개선을 핵심으로 한다. 사인(私人)인 가족과 의사에 의한 강제입원과 장기입원을 사실상 제도화한 구 정신보건법의 보호입원은 지난 20년 간 오명(汚名)을 남기고서 2016년 9월 헌법재판소의 위헌(헌법불합치)결정을 받고, 정신건강복지법에 의해 대체되었다. 정신건강복지법은 성년이 된 정신보건법의 다른 이름이기도 하다. 정신건강복지법은 구 정신보건법보다 성숙해진 강제입원제도를 만들어냈지만 아직 성취하지 못한 것이 많다. 특히, 강제입원심사기관을 여전히 사실상 독립성과 중립성이 부족한 의료적 합의체의 형식적 서면심사에 맡기고 있다는 점이다. 이러한 심사기구 구성과 심사방식은 국제기준이나 서구 주요국가의 기준에 비추어 여전히 낙후되어 있다고 볼 수 있다. 본 논문은 정신건강복지법이 규율하는 강제입원제도의 역사를 시 공간적으로 확장하여 살펴보고, 그 사회적 의미를 분석해 보고자 한다. 한국 구 정신보건법의 연원이 된 프랑스 1838년 정신이상자에 관한 법률과 그 이전의 영국 부랑법과 광기법이 가진 법적 진화의 20 세기적 변용이 정신보건법임을 본 논문은 논증해보고자 한다. 한국 정신보건법이 여전히 19세기적 치안입법적 성격을 내포하고 있지만 정신건강복지법 으로의 전환을 통해 보건의료 및 복지입법으로 재탄생하고자 하였음을 본 글에서 밝히고자 한다. 특히, 입법과정에서 정신장애당사자단체 및 장애인권단체의 활동이 주도적 역할을 하 였음을 보이며, 그러한 역할이 정신건강복지법이 정신장애인의 인격적 주체성을 확보하고, 그 수단이라 할 수 있는 말하여질 권리(경청받을 권리)의 형태로 구체화되었음을 드러내 보이고자 한다. The Mental Health Act 1995 is revised completely in 2016. The name of the Act is changed to Act on the Improvement Of Mental Health and the Support for Welfare Services for Mental Patients(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The core of the Act is involuntary admission. The article 24 in the Mental Health Act 1995 which stipulated involuntary admission by the nearest relatives and the mental health hospital directors was unconstitutional(unconformable to constitution) in September 2016. The article 24 in the Mental Health Act 1995 is revised to be the article 43 in the Act, which provides that involuntary admission by the nearest relatives and the mental health hospital directors is strictly restricted. The Mental Health and Welfare Act needs to improve the review bodies of involuntary admission. The review bodies in the Act is insufficient for independence and neutrality. The review bodies are in fact not judicial bodies but medical bodies and the review method is by document, not in face to face. The constitution and review method of the bodies is inconsistent with international rules of UN MI Principles and CRPD and it is outdated. This article surveys the history of involuntary admission through extension of space and time. The Mental Health Act 1995 in Korea originated in the France act concerning the insane 1838. In the 20th century, involuntary admission of mental health law succeeded the vagrancy law and lunacy law in Europe. The purpose of Involuntary admission was for public safety based on police power in the first half if 20th century and since that time its purpose focuses on treatment and welfare of the Mentally ill based on parens patriae power. Legal nature of the Mental Health Act 1995 in Korea was police law and involuntary admission is security measures of the potential mentally disordered offender. but the Mental Health and Welfare Act is for the welfare and human dignity of the mentally ill. This change in the goal of the Act is due to the participation of the mentally ill organizations and advocacy groups in the legislation process. The Act provides that the mentally ill have the self-determination right explicitly and have right to be heard implicitly on the demand of the participants in legislation.

硏究論文 : 이혼사유로서 정신질환의 법적 고찰

申權澈 ( Kwon Chul Shin ) 법조협회 2012 法曹 Vol.61 No.10

정신질환은 질병의 일종이면서 한편으로는 혼인생활과 이혼에 있어 다양한 법적 효과를 발생시키는 원인이 된다. 정신질환의 결과로서 발생하는 무능력이나 혼인생활의 부담은 혼인관계에서 발생하는 상대방에 대한 부양의무의 내용을 사실상 변화시키고, 혼인파탄의 결과를 야기하는 경우에는 이혼사유로도 작용한다. 정신질환으로 인한 이혼이 다른 이혼사유와 크게 차이가 나는 점은 그에게 귀책사유가 없는 질병이라는 점에 있으며, 또 하나는 그에게 정신질환으로 인한 무능력으로 인해 부양이 필요하다는 점이다. 정신질환을 이유로 한 이혼소송에서 위 두 가지 점이 법원에서 이혼을 허용할지 여부를 고민에 빠뜨리게 하는 지점이다. 그런데 정신질환 이혼이 정신질환이 있는 배우자를 가족관계에서 배제시킬 수 있는 법제도적 장치로서 작동하면서 그의 무책성이나, 부양필요성은 간과되고 있는 측면이 있다. 본 논문에서는 역사적으로 정신질환으로 인한 이혼을 법이 어떻게 다루어 왔는지 서구와 한국의 역사를 통해 개관하여 살펴보고, 현재 대법원의 판례가 어떤 태도를 취하고 있는지 검토한 후 정신질환이 혼시 고려해야 할 요소가 무엇인지 살펴본다. 본 논문의 결론에서는 정신질환이 이혼제도에 있어 유책주의 이혼법을 파탄주의 이혼법으로 전환시키는 특수한 성격을 지니고 있음을 보이고, 정신질환 이혼이 사실상 귀책사유 없는 사람에 대해 가족관계에서 배제하는 것이기 때문에 요양료의 지급 등 일정한 보호조치가 필요함을 제시하고자 한다. Mental illness is not only a kind of disease but also a ground for divorce. Korea has preserved traditional fault grounds for divorce. Article 840 of the Korean Civil Law Code does not explicitly provide that mental illness is ground for divorce, but serious mental illness is a ground for divorce in Korean court. Mental illness as grounds for divorce is different from other grounds for divorce like adultery, cruelty, abandonment or desertion. Though mental illness is not his/her fault, but disease like cancer or stroke, law permits mental illness irrespective of his/her will to make a marriage dissolve. Mentally ill spouse is required to be cared during marriage and post divorce, but in current divorce law this study is dealing with the legal issues on mental illness as grounds for divorce. This study focuses on the legal history of mental illness as grounds for divorce in chapter Ⅱ, and analyzes judicial precedents of the supreme court about mental illness divorce case in chapter Ⅲ. In conclusion, mental illness itself is not grounds for divorce. The difference between mental illness as grounds for divorce and other grounds for divorce should be recognized, and no-fault mentally ill spouses should be provided the protection and care of former spouses or country with the use of the marital property.

노동법에 있어 경영권의 비판적 고찰

신권철(Shin, Kwon-Chul) 한국노동법학회 2017 노동법학 Vol.0 No.63

There is no management right in the 1987 Korean Constitution. Instead, the Constitution provides that all citizens shall have the right to work and to enhance working conditions, workers shall have the right to independent association, collective bargaining and collective action. The Korean Supreme Court in 2002 decided that the decision of implementing corporate restructuring, including layoff or business merger, falls within the scope of high-level management decision may not be a subject of collective bargaining, as a general rule and a labor union"s strike essentially to oppose the implementation of such corporate restructuring is not justifiable even if the corporate restructuring inevitably entails changes in the status of workers or their working conditions. This decision is to protect management right and to restrict labor right based on the constitution. This article focuses on the Supreme Court’s judicial precedents on management right. In the Supreme Court decisions, employer’s decisions on management in workplace is referred to as non-negotiables with labor union. The main purpose of this article is to criticize management right based on the property rights in the constitution. Management right like paternal power or sovereign power is in fact the power to control employees acquired through the employment contract . Employer’s right to manage a business from the property rights is converted to the power to subordinate employees through contract. This article concludes that management rights can’t be constitutional rights nor sacred and inviolable prerogatives. Management rights to control employee is a de facto ‘potestas’ which is a Latin word meaning power. It should be controlled by the law and labor right.