[시] 깽녀

이세기(李世起) 새얼문화재단 2010 황해문화 Vol.66 No.-

[ 제2부 1주제 ] 외국법인인 사용자에 대한 근로기준법 적용의 한계 - 서울고등법원 2006. 7. 6 선고 2005누16668 판결을 중심으로 -

이세리 노동법이론실무학회 2013 정기학술대회 Vol.2013 No.10

BIPV와 건축자재의 융복합 기술 동향

이세현(李世賢),송종화(宋種和),정성훈(鄭聖勳) 한국조명·전기설비학회 2014 조명.전기설비 Vol.28 No.1

Perovskite solar cells: PMMA/2D material as dual interlayer enhances performance and stability simultaneously

이세리,김규민,오세용 한국공업화학회 2022 한국공업화학회 연구논문 초록집 Vol.2022 No.-

회사분할과 근로관계의 승계

이세리 노동법이론실무학회 2011 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.6

There are no express provisions in the Commercial Act or the Civil Act of Korea regarding the transfer of employment relations upon corporate separation. Additionally,unlike the cases involving the transfer of employment relations upon corporate merger or business assignment, there are no clear precedents set by the Supreme Court regarding the above. On the one hand, if Article 530.10 of the Commercial Act applied without exception to the transfer of employment relations at the time of corporate separation,i.e., "comprehensive transfer" of existing employment relations as may be "legally obvious" according to the separation plan, then it may make the position of employees insecure; moreover, it would also fail to prevent abuse of employment termination purely for managerial reasons and prevent voluntary relocation of employment. On the other hand, if Article 657.1 of the Civil Act which stipulates that "an employer may not transfer its employee's rights to a third party without the employee's consent"applied strictly, then it may impair efficiency of corporate separation and contradict the principle of comprehensive corporate separation. However, until now, the court precedents in Korea regarding the transfer of employment relations at the time of corporate separation have relied too heavily on the principle of the Civil Act and fully recognized the right of consent or refusal of employees. As such, the inevitable criticism is that such precedents have stayed away from the principle of corporate separation under the Commercial Act. Ultimately, in order to resolve such inconsistency, new formation of legislation or court precedent to the following effect is necessary. The components thereof are similar to the respective employment contract transfer law of Japan. should be distinguished and categorized with specific standards. Second, in the event the employment relations are those of the employees working in the business sector that is being separated upon corporate separation, an exception to Article 657.1 of the Civil Act should be allowed and the right of consent or refusal of such employees should not be recognized in order to preserve the principle of comprehensive transfer under the Commercial Act. Third, if the subject employees mainly work in the business sector that is being separated upon corporate separation but are not indicated as subject of transfer in the separation plan, then the right of objection should be recognized so as to allow the transfer of their employment relations and the period for exercising such right of objection should be stipulated. Fourth, if the subject employees do not work in the business sector that is being separated upon corporate separation but are indicated as subject of transfer in the separation plan, then the right of objection in such case should also be recognized so that the right to refuse such transfer may be secured. In sum, it would be necessary to prepare a legislative mechanism where by the principle of the Civil Act which stipulates that employment relations should be transformed to a 3rd party upon the subject employees' consent will be recognized,provided, the comprehensive transfer of employment relations of those who are specified in the separation plan should be upheld in order to preserve the effect of corporate separation under the Commercial Act, while the intent of the subject employees is reflected to an extent. 회사분할시 근로관계의 승계에 관해서는 현행 상법이나 민법에 명시적인규정이 없고, 회사분할시의 효력에 관한 상법 제530조의 10이나 고용계약의승계에 관한 민법 제657조 제1항 규정을 회사분할시 근로관계의 승계에 적용하는 것도 한계가 있다. 한편, 현재까지 회사분할시 근로관계의 승계에 관한우리나라의 판례를 보면, 지나치게 민법의 원리에 충실하여 근로자의 동의또는 거부권을 전면적으로 인정함으로 인해 상법상 회사분할의 법리를 도외시하였다는 비판을 면하기 어렵다. 이러한 점을 고려해볼 때 근로관계는 근로자의 동의가 있어야 제3자에게승계할 수 있다는 민법의 원리를 중시하면서도, 상법상 회사분할의 효과를저해하지 않기 위해 분할계획서 등에 기재된 근로자들에 근로관계에 대해서는 원칙적으로 당연히 포괄승계 됨을 인정하되 근로자의 희망이나 의사를 일정하게 반영하는 장치를 입법적으로 마련할 필요가 있다고 본다.

Cu 박막의 증착 종료 후의 인장응력 방향으로의 응력이동

이세리,김영만 한국진공학회 2014 한국진공학회 학술발표회초록집 Vol.2014 No.8

Cu 박막의 증착 종료 이후 인장응력 방향으로의 응력이동

이세리,김영만 한국표면공학회 2014 한국표면공학회 학술발표회 초록집 Vol.2014 No.5

음양오행을 통한 색채심리 방법론 제시

이세리 한국색채디자인학회 2005 한국색채디자인학 연구 Vol.1 No.1

In Color psychology, our study focuses on the Personal Color. We found out that every individual has his/her own best color that fits him/her the most, and even the same color gives a different influence to each individual. Based upon our method, the best color for each person comes from its consciousness and unconsciousness. Thus, we came up with the hypothesis that we are able to figure out what the best color is for each individual and we suggest it with an accurate explanation. For our hypothesis, we integrated The Comic Dual Forces and Five Elements with C.C Jung's Analysis Psychology and Color Psychology.

[시] 굴을 쪼는 일

이세기(李世起) 새얼문화재단 2010 황해문화 Vol.66 No.-

퇴직연금 제도를 둘러싼 법률관계에 대한 고찰

이세리 노동법이론실무학회 2023 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.39

While retirement pensions have been introduced in Korea for almost 18 years, the scope of its application and amounts contributed has expanded considerably. There have also been noticeable changes in retirement pension systems, such as introduction of a default option system (i.e., automatic management method of retirement pension contributions), etc. Despite the significance of the retirement pension system, not many substantive legal review has occurred on the legal nature of the retirement pension system and how it should be dealt with during litigation. However, there is distinct difference between the severance pay system, where the employer pays a lump-sum amount (as deferred wages) to the employee at the time of retirement as compared to a retirement pension plan, which requires employers to contribute minimum amounts to an external institution (i.e., retirement pension provider) and which depending on the type of retirement pension, gives employees the right to directly manage the funds contributed. Due to such discrepancy, the issues that arise when handling disputes regarding retirement pensions are different from disputes that arise regarding severance pay. The right for an employee to claim severance pay arises when the employee retires, and the employer is the debtor that must pay the severance pay to the employee. With respect to a Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plan, while the employee similarly has the right to claim the retirement benefits at the time of retirement, depending on the rates contributed, the employee may have rights to claim retirement benefits from both the employer and retirement pension provider. Nonetheless, the employer will be deemed as having the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the employee receives the retirement benefits. With respect to a Defined Contribution (DC) Pension Plan, the employer only bears the obligation to pay a predetermined amount of contributions on the designated payment dates, and the retirement pension provider is responsible for paying the accumulated contributions to the individual employee's IRP account when the triggering event (e.g., retirement) occurs. Due to such difference, under a DB Pension Plan, the employer may be criminally liable for failure to pay retirement benefits within 14 days of the employee's retirement date. In contrast, under a DC Pension Plan, the only instance of which an employee bears criminal responsibility for overdue payment is when the employer fails to pay contributions and late interest within 14 days from the date of retirement. The employer is not otherwise liable for failure to pay the accumulated contributions to the employee's IRP account. With respect to civil liability under a DB Pension Plan, a 10-year statute of limitations may apply (standard statute of limitations for debt) as the current laws provide no basis for applying a shorter 3-year statute of limitations. With respect to contributions under a DC Pension Plan, a 3-year statute of limitations may apply as such contributions qualify as standard debt that has occurred within 1 year pursuant to the Civil Act. The statute of limitations to file a claim with respect to a DB Pension Plan will start running after the day of the employee's retirement, which is when the right may be exercised. However, with respect to a DC Pension Plan, the current legal framework regarding statute of limitations supports a finding that the statute of limitations should start running not after the day of retirement, but after the day that the relevant contributions are made. With respect to this matter, the District Courts and the Ministry of Employment and Labor have issued differing opinions. 퇴직연금 제도가 도입되고 나서도 상당한 시간이 흐르면서, 퇴직연금 제도는 적립금 규모뿐 아니라 그 내용도 괄목할 만큼 성장했고, 최근에도 디폴트 옵션 도입 등 상당한 변화가 있었다. 그런데, 이처럼 퇴직연금 제도가 중요한 위치를 차지하게 되었음에도 퇴직연금 제도의 법적 성격과 소송상 취급에 대해서는 구체적인 법률상 검토가 이루어진 바가 많이 없었고, 막연히 퇴직금과 동일한 제도라는 전제하에 해석하는 경향이 있는 것 같다. 그러나 사용자가 근로자의 퇴직시 후불임금적 성격으로 일시금으로 지급하는 전통적인 퇴직금과 사용자가 외부 기관에 일정 부분 이상을 적립하도록 하고, 퇴직연금 유형에 따라서는 근로자에게 직접 운용에 대한 권한을 주는 퇴직연금은 분명히 차이점이 있고, 이로 인하여 퇴직연금과 관련된 분쟁 사건을 처리함에 있어서도 퇴직금과는 다른 쟁점들이 발견되므로 이에 대한 검토가 필요하다. 우선 퇴직금은 근로자의 퇴직시 비로소 근로자의 청구권이 발생하고, 그에 대한 채무자는 사용자이다. 한편, 퇴직연금 중 DB의 경우 퇴직시 근로자의 퇴직급여 청구권이 발생하는 것이 맞으나, 퇴직연금 사업자에 적립된 비율에 따라서는 퇴직연금 사업자와 사용자 양자에게 청구권을 갖는다고 해석할 수 있다. 다만, 퇴직연금 급여 수급에 대한 종국적인 책임은 사용자가 진다고 볼 수 있을 것이다. 퇴직연금 중 DC의 경우, 사용자는 정해진 납입일에 부담금을 납입할 의무만을 부담하고, 퇴직 등 사유가 발생하였을 때 적립된 부담금을 근로자 개인의 IRP 계좌로 지급하여야 하는 책임은 퇴직연금 사업자에게 있다. 이러한 차이점 때문에 우선 체불에 대한 형사책임과 관련하여 DB의 경우는 퇴직급여 미지급에 사용자가 체불의 책임을 지지만, DC의 경우 사용자가 체불에 대한 형사책임을 지는 경우는 퇴직일로부터 14일 내에 부담금과 그에 따른 지연이자를 납입하지 못했을 때뿐이고, 적립된 부담금이 IRP로 지급되지 못한 것에 대해서는 책임을 지지 않는다. 민사책임과 관련하여 DB의 경우 현재 법규상으로는 퇴직연금 급여 청구권에 3년의 단기 소멸시효를 적용할 근거가 없으므로 10년의 일반채권 소멸시효가 적용되어야 한다고 볼 여지가 있고, DC 부담금의 경우 민법상 1년 내의 정기채권으로 3년의 소멸시효가 적용된다고 해석될 수 있을 것이다. 소멸시효의 기산점과 관련하여, DB는 권리를 행사할 수 있는 때인 퇴직일 다음날부터로 볼 수 있을 것인데, DC의 경우는 퇴직일이 아니라 각 부담금 납입일 다음날로부터 기산된다고 보는 것이 소멸시효의 기본 법리에 부합한다. 이 점에 대해서는 최근 하급심 판결과 고용노동부 행정해석과 의견을 달리한다.