언론·출판의 자유와 명예보호 사이의 한계 : 영연방국가와의 비교를 중심으로

윤기택 한국재산법학회 2007 한국재산법학회 학술대회 자료집 Vol.2007 No.2

비정규직 보호법상 차별시정제도

윤기택 청주대학교사회과학연구소 2017 한국사회과학연구 Vol.38 No.2

In this paper, I investigated and analyzed the decision by the Labor Relations Commission or the Court about correction of discrimination against irregular workers or dispatched workers in relation to the "wage and other working conditions". First, it is about whether an employee complies with the application requirements when he / she applies to the Labor Relations Commission for the correction of discriminatory treatment. When the discriminatory treatment occurs in wages, at first the Central Labor Relations Commission judgment held that the party who is obliged to implement the correction of discrimination is a dispatching employer and that the employing employer cannot be regarded as a party who is obliged to implement the corrective action for discrimination. Later, however, the Central Labor Commission held that both the dispatching employer and the employing employer have the obligation to perform the correction of discrimination contrary to the previous judgment. The Court held that a dispatching or irregular worker may file for correction before six months have passed after the end of the employment contract where wages are subject to continuous discriminatory treatment. And even after the termination of the employment relationship, the Court ruling suggests that irregular workers or dispatched workers have a relief interest in seeking correction of discrimination in relation to wages. Second, it is about whether there must be workers to be compared. In order to determine whether an employer discriminated against an irregular worker, a comparable worker must exist. The comparable worker must be a regular employee, who has concluded an employment contract with an unfixed period of time, works in the same or similar work in the business or workplace. In addition, the comparable workers should be present at the same time. If the comparable worker and the non-regular worker are co-working and then the comparable worker is deployed or moved to another job due to user's personnel action or the like, the correction order should be directed to the point where the comparable workers coexist. Third, in the "wage and other working conditions", what are the criteria for the prohibition of discriminatory treatment and the rationale for a reasonable reason for allowing adverse treatment of the employer? In determining wages, which is the most important factor in the treatment of workers, it depends on factors such as factors related to the provision of work (job, ability, function, skill, qualification, career, educational background, years of service, responsibility), And if they receive unfavorable wages due to differences in the factors, there can be a reasonable ground for the unfavorable wages. 이 논문은 사용자가 비정규직(기간제·단시간·파견근로자)임을 이유로 당해 사업 또는 사업장에서 동종 또는 유사한 업무에 종사하는 비교대상 근로자에 비하여 “임금 그 밖의 근로조건 등”에서 합리적인 이유 없이 불리하게 처우하는 경우의 그 구제에 관한 연구이다. 비정규직 근로자가 노동위원회에 차별적 처우 시정신청을 하면 노동위원회는 차별적 처우여부를 판단하여야 하는데, 그 기준과 쟁점은 첫째, 차별적 처우 시정 신청요건, 둘째 비교대상 근로자가 있는지 여부, 셋째 만약 비교대상 근로자가 있다면 차별금지영역에서 불리한 처우가 있었는지의 여부와 차별금지영역에서 만약 불리한 처우가 있었다면 합리적 이유의 존재여부가 쟁점이다. 이 논문에서는 이러한 쟁점에 대하여 최근의 노동위원회 판정과 법원의 판례를 중심으로 논의를 전개하였다.

파견과 다른 형태의 제3자 관련 노무공급에 관한 구별기준과 법적 문제

윤기택 충북대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.29 No.2

After the dispatch law was enacted, the issue of disguised subcontracts and illegal dispatch became a big issue in our society and there was a fierce debate about them. In addition, there are many forms of employment relations involving workers and third parties. A lawsuit has been filed against these issues, and the Supreme Court has issued various types of rulings concerning this. The Supreme Court has recognized direct labor relations between workers and contractors in addition to recognizing the labor contract relationship between workers and contractors (employers) through the establishment of implicit labor contracts or recognition of dispatched labor relations. The Supreme Court sees mining rights holders as users of miners when the so - called mining lease agreement is in place. In the event that coal mining operations are carried out under strong supervision and control of mining owners, even though contractors have been reorganized between mining owners and miners in the form of labor supply to avoid liability due to the mine accident or liability under the Labor Standards Act, the miners are believed to have actually signed employment contracts with the mining owners through contractors. The Supreme Court also ruled that the actual working relationship between dispatched workers and the head office was established in the event that the head office had been managing the personnel management of the employees directly from a subsidiary staffing agency, and the company's headquarters to use them in the form of camouflaged supply. Although the requirements for implicit labor relations were mentioned in previous cases before the “Hyundai Mipo Shipbuilding incident,” the ruling was the first time that the actual implicit labor relationship was explicitly recognized according to the requirements. In this case, two important requirements for acknowledging the implicit labor contract relationship are: first, the existence of the original employer is only formal and nominal; second, it is the dependency of the dispatched worker to a third party. In this case, it is determined that there is implicitly a working contract relationship with the contractor immediately after the labor contract between the worker and the supply company. Ulsan Plant Hyundai Motor case is the first Supreme Court case that judged that the contractual relationship between the original company and the subcontractor falls under the dispatch of workers (disguised contract). From here, Although it does not provide a general criterion for the relationship, it has been acknowledged that it is a dispatching relationship based on the judgment of facts centered on the work order. On the day of the judgment of the KTX crew member of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court made also rulings on the illegal dispatch of Hyundai Motor and Namhae Chemical. The decision of the illegal dispatch of Hyundai Motor and the illegal dispatch of Namhae chemical was concluded to be the victory of the workers, but the ruling of the KTX crew member of the Supreme Court was decided as a defeat under the same judgment criteria. In the above three rulings, it is meaningful, the Supreme Court to clarify the abstract rules of judgment as to whether it corresponds to workers' dispatch and to present the criteria for future rulings. However, it is unclear to what extent the command authority will be granted in the case of labor subcontract. We expect that more concrete criteria will be established through case law in the future. However, there is doubt as to whether the law was applied based on accurate and comprehensive perception of factual relations.

뉴질랜드의 임대차법에 관한 연구주택 임대차를 중심으로)

윤기택 한국민사법학회 2005 民事法學 Vol.28 No.-

영연방국가의 인격권 보호 및 명예훼손에 관한 연구

윤기택 청주대학교 학술연구소 2006 淸大學術論集 Vol.8 No.-

초록 입력 요망

독일의 개정 임대차법에 관한 연구 : 주택임대차에 관한 규정을 중심으로 Zum Wohnraummietrecht

윤기택,김종현 청주대학교 학술연구소 2004 淸大學術論集 Vol.4 No.-

Die deutsche Mietrechtsreform fu¨hrt durch die Zusammenfassung des bisher in verschiedenen Gesetzen geregelten mietrechtlichen Vorschriften im Bu¨rgerlichen Gesetzbuch (BGB) und ihre jetzt u¨bersichtliche Gliederung insbesondere im Bereich der Wohnraummiete zu einer erheblichen Vereinfachung fu¨r die Betroffenen. Daneben entha¨lt das im BGB zusammengefaβte Wohnraummietrecht aber auch wichtige inhaltliche A¨nderungen. Wa¨hrend der Mieterschutz an einigen Stellen ausgebaut wird, wird die Vertragsfreiheit gesta¨rkt. Das im deutschen BGB zusammengefaβte private Mietrecht finden sich jetzt in den §§ 535 ff. BGB. Eingeleitet werden sie durch allgemeine Vorschriften fu¨r Mietverha¨ltnisse, also Vorschriften, die unabha¨ngig von der Art der gemieteten Sache fu¨r alle Arten von Mietverha¨ltnissen gelten. Daran anschliβend gliedern sich die Vorschriften u¨ber Wohnraummiete, und schlieβlich u¨ber andere Sache (z.B. Gescha¨ftsraummiete). Das deutsche Wohnraummietrecht ist die Vorschriften u¨ber die Miete und Betriebskosten ausfu¨hrlich geregelt. Fu¨r frei finanzierte Wohnungen werden die Mieten bei Abschluβ des Mietvertrages und bei spa¨teren Mieterho¨hungen grundsa¨tzlich frei vereinbart. Falls Vermieter und Mieter Wohnungen sich aber nicht auf eine frei vereinbarte Mieterho¨hung einigen, kann der Vermieter eine gerechtfertigte Mieterho¨hung nach dem Vergleichsmietensystem durchsetzen. Betriebskosten bleiben insoweit auβer Betracht. Bei der Mieterho¨hung wegen gestiegener Vergleichsmiete darf er die Miete aber innerhalb von 3 Jahren nur maximal 20% erho¨hen. Hat der Mieter das Mieterho¨hungsverlangen erhalten, kann er das Mietverha¨ltnis schriftlich ku¨ndigen. Nach einer vorgesehenen Modernizierung dart der Vermieter die Miete auch erho¨hen. Der Mieter hat dabei ebenfalls ein spezielles Ku¨ndigungsrecht. Bei der Abrechnung der Betriebskosten bringt die Mietrechtsreform durch die neue Regelung mehr Klarheit. Nach dem deutschen Wohnraummietrecht endet ein Mietverha¨ltnis auf bestimmte Zeit mit Ablauf der vertraglich vereinbarten Mietzeit, und ein Mietverha¨ltnis auf unbestimmte Zeit durch eine wirksame Ku¨ndigung nach Abaluf der Ku¨ndigungsfrist. Hier gibt es verschiedene Ku¨nigungsarten. Das Gesetz unterscheidet zwischen ordentlicher und auβerordentlicher Ku¨ndigung (also die fristlose Ku¨ndigung). Bei der ordentlichen Ku¨ndigung kann der Vermieter nur dann ku¨ndigen, wenn er ein berechtigtes Interesse an der Beendigung des Mietverha¨ltnisses hat. Diese Ku¨ndigung des Vermieter muβ der Mieter nicht in jedem Fall hinnehmen. Vielmehr kann er unter bestimmten Umsta¨nde widersprechen und die Fortsetzung des Mietverha¨ltnisse verlangen. Auβerdem kann der Vermieter oder der Mieter das Mietverha¨ltnis fristlos ku¨ndigen, wenn sich ein Vertragspartner so schwerwiegende Vertragsverletzungen zuschulden kommen la¨sst, daβ dem underen Teil die Fortsetzung des Mietverha¨ltnisses nicht zugemutet werden kann. Zwischen deutschem und koreanischem Wohnraummietrecht bestehen die rechtsvergleichend bemerkenswerten Unterschiede im Hinblick auf das Mieterho¨hungsverlangen und das Eintrittsrechtbei Tod des Mieters. Wa¨hrend nach deutschem Wohnraummietrecht fu¨r die Mieterho¨hung sog. die ortsu¨bliche Vergleichsmiete (und auch sog. die Kappungsgrenze) in Betracht kommt, wird im koreanischen Wohnraummietrecht nur prozentuale Obergrenze beru¨cksichigt. Zudem hat im deutschen Mietrecht der Vermieter einen Anspruch auf Zustimmung zur Mieterho¨hung bis zur ortsu¨blichen Vergleichsmiete. Dagegen wird in Korea dieser einfach als Gestaltungsrecht angesehen. Fu¨hrt in Deutschlund der Mieter mit seinem Lebenspartner einen gemeinsamen Haushalt, so tritt mit dem Tod des Mieters der Lebenspartner in das Mietverha¨ltnis ein. Wenn er nicht eintreten will, so wird es mit den Erben des Mieters fortgefu¨hrt. Aber nach dem koreanischen Wohnraummietrecht treten in diesem Fall der Lebenspartner und den Erben des Mieters gemeinsam ein.

제척기간(除斥期間)을 둘러싼 몇 가지 쟁점(爭點)들에 관한 연구(硏究)

윤기택 청주대학교 법학연구소 2003 法學論集 Vol.19 No.-

商家(店鋪)賃貸借에 관한 硏究

尹起澤 청주대학교 법학연구소 2001 法學論集 Vol.18 No.-

차별시정제도에 관한 판례 평석 — 대상판례: 대법원 2016. 12. 1. 선고 2014두43288 판결 —

윤기택 한국사회법학회 2019 社會法硏究 Vol.0 No.37

The System of Correcting Discrimination aims to protect irregular employees such as fixed-term, part-time, and temporary agency from unfair discrimination, the following arguments can be drawn on the Precedent. First, when it comes to regulatory benefit, strict limitation appears not appropriate as it applies the logic of requisition of relief on the Labor Standard Act. On the other hand, the Precedent which recognized requisition of relief in accordance with monetary award seems reasonable. Furthermore, concerning the existence of worker for comparison, a prohibition of discrimination to irregular employees encompasses the principle of the same salary for same work, the belief on a ban of labour exploitation, therefore, expanding the interpretation of sameness and likeness, and simultaneity is not required. This supports the Precedent's logic, which concedes temporary workers and regular workers can be a target of comparison because both hold a common fundamental factor, driving lecture. Finally, for the purpose of Act on the Protection, etc. of fixed-term and part-time employees, the target of a prohibition on discriminative treatment has to be broadly recognized, and in contrast, reasonable grounds should be limitedly interpreted since it against mandatory provisions. Despite the Case led discriminative treatments as a result of a collective agreement and its application between regular workers and temporary workers, this clearly conflicts with a mandatory provision on the law in force. Consequently, the Precedent’s assertion, which does not allow it as a reasonable ground for discriminative treatment, appears valid. 차별시정제도가 기간제・단시간・파견제 등 비정규직 근로자를 부당한 차별로부터 보호하기 위한 제도임을 생각할 때, ① 구제이익의 존부에 관하여, 엄격 제한설은 근로기준법상 구제신청 논리를 적용하고 있어서 타당하지 않으며, 금전보상 등의 이유로 구제이익을 인정한 대상판례는 타당하다. ② 비교대상 근로자의 존부에 관하여, 비정규직 근로자에 대한 차별금지는 동일노동 동일임금의 원칙, 노동착취의 금지의 이념도 포함하고 있으므로, 동종・유사성을 확대 해석하고 동시성 요건은 필요하지 아니하며, 대상판례에서 기간제 근로자와 운전강습이라는 본질적인 차이가 없는 정규직 운전기사를 비교대상 근로자로 인정한 것은 타당하다. ③ 불리한 처우 및 합리적 이유의 존부에 관하여, 비정규직 보호법의 취지에 맞게 차별적 처우의 금지대상은 폭넓게 인정하고, 합리적 이유는 엄격하게 해석하여야 한다. 단체협약의 적용으로 이를 적용받지 아니하는 비정규직 운전기사에 비하여 정규직 운전기사를 우대하는 결과가 초래된 경우, 이는 차별대우의 합리적 이유가 될 수 없다는 대상판례의 해석은 타당하다.

사무환경 개선의 필요성과 업무 효율성에 관한 연구

윤기택 한국가구학회 2003 한국가구학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.- No.-