플랫폼 노동과 사회계약의 재구성

남재욱 참여연대 2022 시민과세계 Vol.- No.40

In this study, the problem of platform labor was examined from the perspective of social contracts surrounding production relations. In the production system of the industrial society, the relationship between business, labor, and the state/society can be seen as a kind of social contract. In this contract, the capital and labor exchanged ① work and wage, and ② control and stability. The capital and state exchanged ① legal rights and procuction/employment, and ② control and stability social protection and tax and social insurance contributions. Employment relationship was at the center of the exchange relationship. This does not mean that social contracts between capital, labor, and state/society must be through employment relationship, but rather that social contracts in the industrial society took the employment relationship for granted. The emergence of digital labour platforms erodes such social contracts in terms of ‘the business without labour’. This erosion is disproportionate, with workers still providing labor, but incomes are under downward pressure. The labor stability has been lost, but control over labor persists through algorithms and technologies. Even in the relationship between the capital and state/society, platform companies are socializing the cost of increased workers’ instability. Of course, digital platform companies may contribute to the society by reducing transaction costs in the market, creating new transactions, and improving the efficiency of matching. However, it is questionable whether the contribution is sufficient to compensate for the erosion of existing social contracts in platform labor relations. In this study, the emergence of platform labor and erosion of social contracts were confirmed by a method of qualitative data analysis based on theoretical analysis and interviews with platform experts and workers. In addition, based on the perception that the core of the platform labor problem lies in ‘the business without labour’, the direction of reconstruction of social contracts that are not trapped in the categorization of ‘platform labor’ was sought. 본 연구는 플랫폼 노동 문제를 생산관계를 둘러싼 사회적 계약이라는 관점에서 살펴보았다. 산업사회의 생산시스템에서 기업, 노동, 그리고 국가/사회의 관계는 일종의 사회계약이라고 볼 수 있다. 이 계약 안에서 기업과 노동은 노동력과 소득, 통제와 안정성을, 기업과 국가/사회는 법적 권리와 생산․고용, 사회적 보호와 조세․사회보험기여를 교환하는 관계를 맺고 있었다. 그 교환관계의 중심에는 고용이 있었다. 이는 기업, 노동, 국가/사회 간의 사회적 계약이 반드시 고용을 매개로 해야 한다는 의미라기보다는 산업사회의 사회적 계약이 고용을 당연한 전제조건으로 하고 있었음을 의미한다. 디지털 플랫폼의 등장은 ‘고용하지 않는 기업’이라는 측면에서 이와 같은 사회적 계약을 침식한다. 그 침식은 불균형적으로 나타나는데 노동자는 여전히 노동력을 제공하지만, 소득은 하향 압력을 받고 있으며, 노동의 안정성을 상실했지만 노동에 대한 통제는 알고리즘과 기술을 매개로 존속하고 있다. 기업과 사회와의 관계에서도 플랫폼 기업은 고용관계가 아닌 방식으로 노무를 수취함으로 인해 증가된 노동자의 불안정에 대한 비용을 사회화한다. 물론 디지털 플랫폼은 시장에서 거래비용을 감소시키고, 새로운 거래를 창출하며, 매칭의 효율성을 개선하는 방식으로 사회에 기여할 수 있다. 그러나 그 기여가 플랫폼 노동관계에서 나타난 기존 사회계약의 침식을 충분히 메울 정도인지에 대해서는 의문이다. 본 연구에서는 이와 같은 플랫폼 노동의 등장과 사회적 계약의 침식을 이론적 분석과 플랫폼 전문가, 노동자에 대한 인터뷰에 기초한 질적자료분석 방법으로 확인하였다. 그리고 플랫폼 노동 문제의 핵심이 ‘고용하지 않는 기업’에 있다는 문제인식을 바탕으로 ‘플랫폼 노동’이라는 범주화에 갇히지 않는 사회적 계약의 재구성 방향을 모색하였다.

고지의무 위반시 보험자의 해지권 불행사와 손해방지의무 위반- 대법원 2016. 1. 14. 선고 2015다6302 판결 -

유선미,김선정 한국경영법률학회 2016 經營法律 Vol.27 No.1

In this case, the insured of original insurance contract had breach of duty of disclosure when he was contract with insurer. But the insurer did not terminate the original contract. After insurance accident occurred the plaintiff(insurer of original insurance contract) paid proceeds and claimed insurance money to the defendant(reinsurer). But the defendant refused to the remittance because the plaintiff did not exercise the right of termination to the original contract on the ground of breach of the duty of disclosure. The insurance contract is not necessary to become rescission of a contract just as the reason of the breach of the duty of disclosure. But in this case, the defendant insist that the nonuse of the insurer's right of rescission in original contract resulted in the breach of insured' s duty of avert or minimizing the losses. In other words, the reinsured did not exercise the right to terminate contract after occurrence of insured accident and consequently failed to prevent expansion of damage. In an action by the reinsured against to the reinsurer on the reinsurance contract, the reinsurer raised defense which was referred above. The Supreme court decided in favor of compliant on the ground that the breach of duty of avert or minimizing the losses requires the obligator's total negligence but in this case the complaint breached his duty with slight negligence and did not fulfill the requirement. But the writer concludes that the reinsured had breach his duty with gross negligence since he is the professional policyholder in the insurance contracts. 이 사건 원보험계약자는 사기에 가까운 묵비로 보험계약을 체결하여 고지의무를 위반하였다. 보험사고 발생 후, 보험금을 지급한 원보험자는 재보험자에게 보상을 청구하였으나 재보험자는 지급을 거절하였다. 그 이유는 원보험자가 고지의무 위반을 이유로 보험계약을 해지할 수 있었음에도 불구하고 해지권을 행사하지 아니하여 자신에 대한 손해방지의무에 위반하였다는 것이다. 재보험자는 원보험자의 지급책임과 자신의 지급책임을 따졌다. 전자는 운명추정조항에 따라 마무리되었다. 후자는 손해방지의무 위반 문제로 다루어졌다. 원보험자는 원보험계약자가 보험금을 청구할 경우, 4가지 면책사유를 들어 보험금지급을 거절할 수 있었기 때문에 굳이 고지의무위반을 이유로 해지하지 않은 것이라고 주장하였다. 그러나 원보험계약 당사자간의 보험금지급을 둘러 싼 분쟁을 다룬 대한상사중재원 중재에서, 중재판정부는 원보험자의 면책사유를 한 가지도 인정하지 않았다. 대법원은 원보험자의 해지권행사 포기가 손해방지의무위반이기는 하지만 중과실로 인한 의무위반으로 보기는 어렵다고 보았다. 그러나 필자는 원보험자가 보험사업을 영위하는 전문가라는 점에서 중과실로 피고 재보험사에 대한 손해방지의무를 위반한 것이라고 생각한다.

사업의 분할에 따른 근로관계 승계에 대한 고찰

한광수(Han, Gwang-soo) 한국비교노동법학회 2013 노동법논총 Vol.29 No.-

A Corporate restructuring is not a subject of Commercial law but asubject of Labour law, because Commercial law does not have regulation on protection of Labour relations. Commercial law regulates about a merger, a business transfer, and corporate divisions. And it regulates that “Labour relations with the company at the time of the merger are a comprehensive succession”. But it does not have regulation whether Labour relations in a business transfer, and corporate divisions is succeeded or not. The corporate divisions of Commercial law are to target a succession of labour relations rather than to the transfer of property relations of shareholders. Therefore labor relations of corporate division requires the identification in the labour law. It is an important problem of Labour law that whether Labour relations in the Divestitures is succeeded or not. It is also problems of Constitutional Law which is guaranteed Labor Fundamental Right and Labor"s three primary rights of Worker. It is natural that divestitures contain the succession of labour relation. It is also matched up to a doctrine of liability law. But the succession of labour relation in Commercial law may be granted upon the divestiture-merger contract. Therefore, the corporate division in Commercial law may be not succeeded labor relations. The worker"s consent on the succession of labor relation has to judge to consider the substance the corporate division. It just had to go with the workers" intention. I am just hoping to legalize or to supplement of the regulation of Commercial law on the succession of labor relation.

기업을 보험수익자로 하는 단체보험계약의 효력

김문재 경북대학교 법학연구원 2007 법학논고 Vol.0 No.27

The Legal effect of Group Insurance Contract that the enterprise is the beneficiary of the amount insured Kim, Moon-Jae* Group life insurance is that form of life insurance covering all or a part of employees with or without medical examination, written under a policy issued to the employer, the premium on which is to be paid by the employer or by the employer and employees jointly. And the amounts insured that is based upon some plan which will preclude individual selection, is the fund for the benefit of persons other than the employer. Therefore the group insurance contract has originally a legal nature that is the life insurance for the benefit of a third party. But Supreme Court of Korea judged that the group insurance contract could be concluded for the insurance policyholder. Such judgement bases upon the article 735-3 of Korean Commercial Code, because that article doesn't prescribed who is the beneficiary of the amount insured, and prescribed exclusion of the written consent of the insured in the case that group insurance contract is concluded by the collective labour agreement. As a result, the employer designates his ownself as the beneficiary of the amount insured, and the employee has not a right about the amount. But this interpretation has a various problems. Therefore, this paper has a purpose to propose that article 735-3 must be amended to the way that employees are the beneficiary of the amount insured in the group insurance contract. 현행 상법상의 團體保險規定인 제735조의 3은 團體保險金의 귀속주체를 밝히고 있지 않다. 따라서 당해 조문을 문리적으로 해석한다면, 保險契約者인 기업이 保險受益者로 해석될 수 없는 것은 아니다. 그러나 본고에서 지적한 바와 같은 團體保險의 연혁과 법적 구조, 단체보험의 기능 그리고 현행법의 해석론상의 문제점들을 고려할 때 이러한 해석은 團體保險의 본질을 호도할 우려가 크다. 또한 현행 상법이 團體保險의 본질과 가입에 대한 실질적인 상황을 고려하지 않고 실무상의 가입절차의 편의만을 수용하여, 타인의 생명보험에서 요구되는 書面同意를 規約에 의하여 체결되는 團體保險契約의 경우에는 면제한다는 취지만을 밝히고 있는 것은, 국민들의 복지향상을 위하여 국가보장의 부족분을 보충하는 역할을 하는 團體保險에 대한 최소한의 입법적 배려조차 등한시하였다고 볼 수 밖에 없다. 團體保險은 그 출발부터 종업원의 복리후생과 유족의 생활보호를 위한 보험이었다. 그러나 상법 제735조의 3을 신설하면서 團體保險契約의 체결시 개별적 서면동의에 따르는 절차나 비용의 문제와 같은 절차적 혹은 경제적 이유를 인간의 존엄성 내지 인격보다 우선시하고, 또한 개인보험과 같은 도덕적 위험이 없을 것이라는 단순한 사고로부터 동의절차를 면제하는 오류를 범하고 있다. 따라서 입법론으로는 團體保險契約은 他人의 生命保險인 동시에 他人을 위한 生命保險이라는 점을 규정하고, 保險契約者인 기업을 保險受益者로 지정하지 못하도록 하며, 계약의 체결시에도 단체의 규약에 의한 단체적 동의가 아닌 구체적이고 개별적인 서면동의를 요구하는 개정작업이 시급하다고 본다. 이에도 불구하고 현재 보험법에 대한 개정작업 중인 보험법개정위원회에서도 단체보험규정에 대한 전면적인 개정이 아니라, 기업을 보험수익자로 하는 단체보험에 있어서는 피보험자의 서면동의가 요구된다는 의견만이 개진된 상태이어서 필자로서는 만족스러운 상황이 아니다. 보다 진지한 개정작업을 기대하는 바이다.

“노동조합 및 노동관계조정법”의 “근로자”와 “사용자”

윤애림 ( Ae Lim Yun ) 민주주의법학연구회 2014 민주법학 Vol.0 No.56

노동법상 근로자·사용자 범위에 관한 지금까지의 논의는 노무제공자와 사업주 사이에 근로계약관계 내지 이른바 ‘사용종속관계’가 있어야 한다는 논리에서 그다지 멀리 나아가지 못했다. 이 글은 ‘노동조합 및 노동관계조정법’의 ‘근로자’와 ‘사용자’의 범위에 관한 최근의 판례를 중심으로, 사용종속관계를 노동법 적용의 전제로 삼는 견해를 비판적으로 분석한다. 그리고 노동법의 준거점으로서의 사용종속관계를 넘어서고자 하는 고민의 출발점으로서 노조법상 근로자·사용자에 관한 대안적 접근법을 제시한다. 첫째, 노조법상 근로자 범위를 판단할 때 특정한 사용자와의 근로계약관계의 존부를 기준으로 삼을 이유가 없다. 이미 2004년 대법원 판례가 지적하고 있는 바와 같이 ‘노무공급자들 사이의 단결권 등을 보장해 줄 필요성이 있는가’라는 기준이 중시되어야 한다. 둘째, 노조법상의 사용자 책임을 판단하기 위해서는 ‘노동자 및 노동조합의 자주적 단결활동에 영향을 미침으로써 노동3권을 침해할 수 있는 지위에 있는 자’를 사용자로 보아야 한다. 노조법상의 사용자 책임, 특히 부당노동행위 책임이 근로계약상 사용자 책임을 묻는 연장선 위에 있는 것이 아니라 노동3권을 실제 침해할 수 있는 지위에 있는 자에게 노동조합법상 사용자 책임을 부과하는 것이라면, 해당 근로조건뿐만 아니라 노동3권 행사와 관련된 노동관계 전반에 지배력을 가진 자를 널리 노조법상 사용자로 보아야 할 것이다. An ‘employee’ and an ‘employer’ in Korean labour laws have been understood as the two parties of an ‘employment relationship’. According to judicial precedents, the most significant factor for determining whether work is performed under an employment relationship is a ‘subordinate relationship’, or work done under the direction, authority, supervision or control of the employer. This article critically reviews the recent cases for the scope of an employee and an employer in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA), and proposes an alternative view aiming at securing the collective labour rights under the Korean Constitution. First, an ‘employee’ under the TULRAA must not be confined to those who have a direct employment relationship with a single employer. Instead, those who provide their own labour for others` business and who are in need of the collective labour rights should be protected by the TULRAA. Second, it is necessary to regard a user-employer too who can have an impact on the industrial relations as an ‘employer’ under the TULRAA, regardless of the form of a contract.

19세기 중반 중국의 쿨리무역(苦力貿易)

鄭榮九(Jeong, Young Goo) 동양사학회 2018 東洋史學硏究 Vol.142 No.-

China got enveloped in enormous wave of emigration in 19th century. At first, Chniese went to Straits Settlements in South-East Asia. There was not only close to South China but already settled a lot of Chinese. in South-East Asia, There was always short of labor and many Chinese coolies wanted to got a job in overseas country. Therefore, the Credit-ticket system was made by emigration agent. After opening Chinese five port, western capitalist who have experience about slavery trade go into China. They tried to take advantage of situations which Atlantic plantation need labors and Chinese was going abroad. They started business of emigration, tried to apply a contract-labor system what have operated in western, called “The indentured servants” in Amoy where is small city briskly going to overseas country. But coolies who go to abroad preferred South-east Asia where large acquaintance have settled or preferred California and Sydney where have gold mine. So recruiting coolies in Amoy took a lot of doing. Further poor coolies could easily get used the credit-ticket system, nobody wanted to go to Atlantic plantation. Finally contract emigration to Atlantic plantation died to death and it was caused unbalance between demand and supply. In this state, western capitalist conspire with Chinese coolie dealers who traffic in Chinese, coolie-trade emerged as a new emigration system. This paper examined beginning point of coolie trade through checked various historic materials, reviewed the cause which coolie trade started in Amoy, and explained the reason why coolie trade continued for 30 years in spite of that it different from traditional emigration in Amoy.

국제적 인력 송출에 따른 과세문제

옥무석(Ok Moo Seok) 한국국제조세협회 2011 조세학술논집 Vol.27 No.1

The OECD Tax Committee has been adressed its main concern to the international anti-tax avoidance, and has selected the topic of taxation issues relating to international hiring-out of labor as one of the main concerns. It was in a OECD Report which titled in “Taxation issues relating to international hiring-out of labour: in Trends in International Taxation, Paris, 1985,” that the word ‘hiring-out of labor’ was first appeared in the field of international taxation. Reflecting the recommendations contained in the Report, the Commentary para. 8 of Art. 15 of the OECD Model Tax Convention was added for the international hiring-out of labour in 1992. At first it was intended the judgement criteria as described in the Commentary para. 8 of Art. 15 in the OECD Model Treaty was applied to limit cases of tax abuses, but it was frequently applied to the cases of bona fide companies and employees were being involved. Recognizing these problems, the OECD would launched a task force to review the commentary, and demonstrate a few examples for making the criteria to determine the concept of the true employer in 2004. And then again in 2007 for the public consultation, revised changes to the Commentary on paragraph 2 of Art. 15 of the OECD Model Tax Convention was introduced. In addition, the results of public consultation since 2007 was reflected in the revised model treaty commentary in 2010. This article was reviewed that the authorised OECD approach mentioned above would be also applied as a reasonable standard of interpretation by the various Korean authorities.

中国集体合同制度的历史脉络及未来发展

金红梅 한중법학회 2017 中國法硏究 Vol.29 No.-

단체협약제도는 시장경제국가가 노사관계를 조화시키는 한 가지 중요한 법률제도로서 노사쌍방이 노동관계의 관련 사항에 관하여 단체교섭을 거쳐 단체협약을 체결하는 이러한 방식은 노사관계모순을 조화시키고 사회의 안정을 유지하며 기업의 발전을 촉진하는데 있어서 중요한 의의를 가지고 있다. 세계 각국 및 국제노동법의 발전과정으로부터 볼 때 노동법의 노동관계에 대한 규범은 개별노동관계를 조정하는 대로부터 집단노동관계를 조정하는 발전계단을 거쳐 왔는바 노동법이 고급단계로 발전한 중요한 표지는 단체협약제도의 구축과 보완에 있는 것이지 단지 노동계약제도를 추진하는 것에 있지 않다. 만약 노동계약제도가 노동관계의 확립구조를 건립했다면 단체협약제도는 곧 노동관계의 조정구조를 건립한 것이다. 그동안 중국의 노동입법은 주요하게 개별노동관계의 조정과 규범을 중시해 왔는바 단체협약제도에 관해서는 원칙성적인 규정만 해왔었다. 중국의 시장화 개혁의 추진에 따라 노사분쟁은 이미 한 가지 주요한 사회, 경제적 모순이 되였는바 전통적인 개별노동관계를 핵심으로 노사관계를 조정하는 방식은 이미 새로운 정세의 변화에 적응하지 못하는바 이는 중국이 이미 집단 노동위권시대에 진입했음을 표명한다. 중국의 단체협약제도는 사회주의시장경제의 발전과정에 따라 부단히 추진되어 왔다. 중국이 1994년에 제정한 “중화인민공화국노동법”은 처음으로 법전의 형식으로 단체협약제도를 규정하였는데 이는 중국이 사회주의 시장경제체제로의 전환시기 전면적인 단체협약제도의 건립을 위해 법적 기초를 닦아주었고 중국의 단체협약제도가 새로운 발전단계로 진입했음을 표명하고 있다. 중국이 2000년과 2004년에 제정한 “임금단체협상시행방법” 및 “단체협약규정”은 중국의 단체협약제도가 점점 보완되고 있음을 의미하고 있다. 그러나 중국의 단체협약제도는 여전히 노사쌍방의 관념의식의 편차가 존재하고 계약체결만 중시하고 협상을 경시하여 협상고리가 부족하다는 문제가 존재할 뿐만 아니라, 단체협약의 적용범위가 너무 좁고 업종별 및 지역별 단체협약에 관한 규정이 너무 간단하며 체결한 계약내용이 유사하고 단체교섭과 단체협약의 법적 책임을 명확히 규정하지 않은 등 문제가 존재하고 있다. 본문에서는 단체협약제도의 기본 법리로부터 출발하여 중국 단체협약제도의 역사적 맥락을 설명하고 단체협약제도의 실시현황과 직면한 곤경을 분석하여 언론을 통해 단체협약제도가 사회적 공감으로 되게 하고 협상대표의 자격인정을 중요시하며 단체협약의 협상절차를 규범화할 뿐만 아니라 단체협약의 적용범위를 확대하고 다차원단체교섭구조를 건전히 하며 단체협약서 내용의 실효성을 제고하고 단체교섭과 단체협약을 체결함에 있어서 고용주의 책임을 명확히 규정하는 등 단체협약제도의 미래발전방향을 제기하였는바, 이는 중국 단체협약제도의 성공적인 실시를 결정하는 관건인 것이다. Collective contract system is an important legal system in the market economy countries to coordinate labor relations. It is of great significance to coordinate the contradiction between labor and capital, to maintain social stability and to promote the development of enterprises by the practice of collective bargaining by collective bargaining between labor and capital on labor-related matters. From the development history of the world and the international labor law, the regulation of the labor relation to the labor relations has gone through the development stage from adjusting the individual labor relations to adjusting the collective labor relations. The important sign of the development of labor law to the advanced stage is how to construct and improve the collective contract system, rather than the simple implementation of the labor contract system. If the labor contract system has established the labor relations establishment mechanism, the collective contract system has established the labor relations adjustment mechanism. All along, Chinese labor legislation is mainly concerned about the adjustment of individual labor relations and norms, only on the collective contract system in principle. With China’s market-oriented reform, labor disputes have become one of the main socio-economic contradictions. The traditional individual labor relations as the core adjustment of labor relations has been unable to adapt to the new situation changes. This marks that China has entered the era of collective labor rights. Chinese collective contract system is accompanied by the development of the socialist market economy continues to advance. “People’s Republic of China Labor Law” promulgated in 1994 for the first time in the form of the Code provides for the collective contract system. The promulgation of the “Labor Law” laid the legal foundation for the establishment and perfection of the collective contract system in the period of China’s transition, and it marks the Chinese collective contract system into a new stage of development. China promulgated respectively the “Trial Measures for Collective Consultation on Wages” and “Collective Contract Provisions” in 2000 and 2004, which means that China’s collective contract system is gradually improving. However, there are some deficiencies in the collective contract system in China, including the deviation of the concept of both employers and employees, only re-signing and consultation with light and serious shortage of consultation. Besides, the scope of application of collective contract is too narrow and the contract of industry and region is less, the contents of the contract signed the same, and there is no clear collective consultation and the signing of the collective contract legal liability and so on. Based on the basic legal jurisprudence of the collective contract system, this paper attempts to sort out the historical sequence of the Chinese collective contract system, analysis of the status of collective contract system and the difficulties faced. It points out that through the guidance of public opinion, the collective contract system becomes a kind of social consensus, pay attention to the cognizance of the consultation representative, standardize the negotiation procedure of the collective contract, expand the scope of the collective contract, comprehensively establish the multi - level collective consultation structure, improve the effectiveness of the contract, clear collective bargaining and signing of collective contracts in the employer’s responsibility, which is the future development direction of collective contract system as the key to the success of the implementation of the collective contract system in China.

중국 단체협약제도의 역사적 맥락 및 미래발전

金红梅 한중법학회 2017 中國法硏究 Vol.29 No.-

단체협약제도는 시장경제국가가 노사관계를 조화시키는 한 가지 중요한 법률제도로서 노사쌍방이 노동관계의 관련 사항에 관하여 단체교섭을 거쳐 단체협약을 체결하는 이러한 방식은 노사관계모순을 조화시키고 사회의 안정을 유지하며 기업의 발전을 촉진하는데 있어서 중요한 의의를 가지고 있다. 세계 각국 및 국제노동법의 발전과정으로부터 볼 때 노동법의 노동관계에 대한 규범은 개별노동관계를 조정하는 대로부터 집단노동관계를 조정하는 발전계단을 거쳐 왔는바 노동법이 고급단계로 발전한 중요한 표지는 단체협약제도의 구축과 보완에 있는 것이지 단지 노동계약제도를 추진하는 것에 있지 않다. 만약 노동계약제도가 노동관계의 확립구조를 건립했다면 단체협약제도는 곧 노동관계의 조정구조를 건립한 것이다. 그동안 중국의 노동입법은 주요하게 개별노동관계의 조정과 규범을 중시해 왔는바 단체협약제도에 관해서는 원칙성적인 규정만 해왔었다. 중국의 시장화 개혁의 추진에 따라 노사분쟁은 이미 한 가지 주요한 사회, 경제적 모순이 되였는바 전통적인 개별노동관계를 핵심으로 노사관계를 조정하는 방식은 이미 새로운 정세의 변화에 적응하지 못하는바 이는 중국이 이미 집단 노동위권시대에 진입했음을 표명한다. 중국의 단체협약제도는 사회주의시장경제의 발전과정에 따라 부단히 추진되어 왔다. 중국이 1994년에 제정한 “중화인민공화국노동법”은 처음으로 법전의 형식으로 단체협약제도를 규정하였는데 이는 중국이 사회주의 시장경제체제로의 전환시기 전면적인 단체협약제도의 건립을 위해 법적 기초를 닦아주었고 중국의 단체협약제도가 새로운 발전단계로 진입했음을 표명하고 있다. 중국이 2000년과 2004년에 제정한 “임금단체협상시행방법” 및 “단체협약규정”은 중국의 단체협약제도가 점점 보완되고 있음을 의미하고 있다. 그러나 중국의 단체협약제도는 여전히 노사쌍방의 관념의식의 편차가 존재하고 계약체결만 중시하고 협상을 경시하여 협상고리가 부족하다는 문제가 존재할 뿐만 아니라, 단체협약의 적용범위가 너무 좁고 업종별 및 지역별 단체협약에 관한 규정이 너무 간단하며 체결한 계약내용이 유사하고 단체교섭과 단체협약의 법적 책임을 명확히 규정하지 않은 등 문제가 존재하고 있다. 본문에서는 단체협약제도의 기본 법리로부터 출발하여 중국 단체협약제도의 역사적 맥락을 설명하고 단체협약제도의 실시현황과 직면한 곤경을 분석하여 언론을 통해 단체협약제도가 사회적 공감으로 되게 하고 협상대표의 자격인정을 중요시하며 단체협약의 협상절차를 규범화할 뿐만 아니라 단체협약의 적용범위를 확대하고 다차원단체교섭구조를 건전히 하며 단체협약서 내용의 실효성을 제고하고 단체교섭과 단체협약을 체결함에 있어서 고용주의 책임을 명확히 규정하는 등 단체협약제도의 미래발전방향을 제기하였는바, 이는 중국 단체협약제도의 성공적인 실시를 결정하는 관건인 것이다. Collective contract system is an important legal system in the market economy countries to coordinate labor relations. It is of great significance to coordinate the contradiction between labor and capital, to maintain social stability and to promote the development of enterprises by the practice of collective bargaining by collective bargaining between labor and capital on labor-related matters. From the development history of the world and the international labor law, the regulation of the labor relation to the labor relations has gone through the development stage from adjusting the individual labor relations to adjusting the collective labor relations. The important sign of the development of labor law to the advanced stage is how to construct and improve the collective contract system, rather than the simple implementation of the labor contract system. If the labor contract system has established the labor relations establishment mechanism, the collective contract system has established the labor relations adjustment mechanism. All along, Chinese labor legislation is mainly concerned about the adjustment of individual labor relations and norms, only on the collective contract system in principle. With China's market-oriented reform, labor disputes have become one of the main socio-economic contradictions. The traditional individual labor relations as the core adjustment of labor relations has been unable to adapt to the new situation changes. This marks that China has entered the era of collective labor rights. Chinese collective contract system is accompanied by the development of the socialist market economy continues to advance. “People's Republic of China Labor Law” promulgated in 1994 for the first time in the form of the Code provides for the collective contract system. The promulgation of the “Labor Law” laid the legal foundation for the establishment and perfection of the collective contract system in the period of China's transition, and it marks the Chinese collective contract system into a new stage of development. China promulgated respectively the “Trial Measures for Collective Consultation on Wages” and “Collective Contract Provisions” in 2000 and 2004, which means that China's collective contract system is gradually improving. However, there are some deficiencies in the collective contract system in China, including the deviation of the concept of both employers and employees, only re-signing and consultation with light and serious shortage of consultation. Besides, the scope of application of collective contract is too narrow and the contract of industry and region is less, the contents of the contract signed the same, and there is no clear collective consultation and the signing of the collective contract legal liability and so on. Based on the basic legal jurisprudence of the collective contract system, this paper attempts to sort out the historical sequence of the Chinese collective contract system, analysis of the status of collective contract system and the difficulties faced. It points out that through the guidance of public opinion, the collective contract system becomes a kind of social consensus, pay attention to the cognizance of the consultation representative, standardize the negotiation procedure of the collective contract, expand the scope of the collective contract, comprehensively establish the multi - level collective consultation structure, improve the effectiveness of the contract, clear collective bargaining and signing of collective contracts in the employer's responsibility, which is the future development direction of collective contract system as the key to the success of the implementation of the collective contract system in China.

근로계약법의 이론적 정초

姜熙遠(Kang, Hee-Won) 한국노동법학회 2013 노동법학 Vol.0 No.48

As well as we know, there is no written code called ‘labor contract act’ in the Republic of Korea, but there have been substantial normative meaning of labor contractual rules in Korea that regulate the creation, change, termination of legal rights and duties of employers and employees in individual employment relations. Korean labor market has undergone many transformations as enterprise globalization, diversification of forms of employment, individualization of worker’s consciousness etc., so the properly-designed codification of labor contract lawshould be asked to settle and adjust a bunch of new legal problems and conflicts appropriately in individual employment relations. In this article, some basic questions about Korean Labor Law System are treated with a systematic approach in oder to rebuild an ideal and fundamental infrastructure of korean labor contract law extensively. As the starting point for this legal-dogmatical study, I’m taking paragraph 32 of the Constitution of Korea and some general provisions(article1 to article 6) of the Labor Standard Act which should be regarded as the principles of Korean labor contract law. The Constitution is the supreme law by which all of the korean laws are legitimized. The Labor Standard Act is the Framework Act on individual employment relations which are based on labor contracts agreed between employees and employers, although this Act was originally established as a labor protection law. If any legislation of labor contract law would be enacted in the future, it is the natural corollary that legislation should be subject to the Korean Constitutional Law and the Labor Standard Act inevitably. Following provisions would work as order-ideas which signpost right regulative and legislative directions for the labor contract law; paragraph 32 of the Constitutional Law states the guarantee of laborer’s dignity as a human being in working conditions, and article 1 of Labor Standard Act sets its legislative purpose as securing labor’s Basic Livelihood, article 3 of this Act prohibits lowering working conditions below the legal minimum, and article 6 of this imposes employer to provide equal treatment for all employees of his workplace unit. Especially, the principle of equal decision to working conditions between employee and employer and the doctrine of good faith and sincerity in the Labor Standard Act itself article 4 and article 5 should be recognized as the fundamental principles for the coming labor contract law.