http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 박순영 (검색결과 913 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
-
퇴직금 명목 금원의 부당이득 성립 여부 및 상계의 허부 (대상판결:대법원 2010. 5. 20. 선고 2007다90760 전원합의체 판결)
박순영 사법발전재단 2010 사법 Vol.1 No.13
이 글은 대법원 2010. 5. 20. 선고 2007다90760 전원합의체 판결에 관한 해설이다. 대상판결은 무효인 퇴직금 분할 약정에 기하여 월급이나 일당과 별도로 지급받은 퇴직금 명목의 돈이 부당이득에 해당하고, 사용자가 위 부당이득반환채권으로 근로자의 퇴직금채권을 상계하는 것은 퇴직금채권의 2분의 1을 초과하는 부분에 해당하는 금액에 관하여만 허용된다는 내용으로 하급심에 지침이 되는 중요한 판시를 하였다. 대상판결은 우선, 사용자와 근로자가 매월 지급하는 월급이나 매일 지급하는 일당과 함께 퇴직금으로 일정액을 미리 지급하기로 하는 퇴직금 분할 약정을 하였다면, 그 약정이 근로기준법이 정하는 퇴직금 중간정산으로 인정되는 경우가 아닌 한, 최종 퇴직 시 발생하는 퇴직금청구권을 근로자가 사전에 포기하는 것으로서 퇴직금 제도에 관한 근로기준법의 강행규정에 위배되어 무효임을 다시 한번 확인하였다. 사용자가 위와 같이 무효인 퇴직금 분할 약정에 기하여 실질적으로 퇴직금 명목으로 지급한 돈이 부당이득에 해당하는지 및 부당이득에 해당한다고 보는 경우 사용자의 위 부당이득반환채권으로 근로자의 퇴직금채권을 상계하는 것이 허용되는지 여부에 관하여 대법원의 명시적 판단이 내려지지 아니한 채 하급심에서 각기 서로 다른 취지의 판결례가 존재하는 등 실무상 혼란이 존재하였고, 이러한 하급심의 상반되는 실무례를 통일시키기 위하여 하급심에 지침을 줄 수 있는 대법원의 명시적인 판단이 강하게 요청되는 상황이었다. 이러한 시점에 대상판결은 위 쟁점에 관하여 사용자가 근로자에게 무효인 퇴직금 분할 약정에 기하여 매월 또는 매일 임금과 함께 실질적으로 지급한 퇴직금 명목의 돈은 퇴직금이나 임금이 아닌, 근로자가 사용자에게 반환하여야 할 부당이득에 해당한다는 것과 나아가 사용자가 위 부당이득반환채권으로 근로자의 퇴직금채권을 상계하는 것은 퇴직금채권의 2분의 1을 초과하는 부분에 해당하는 금액에 관하여만 허용된다는 것이 대법원의 견해임을 분명히 한 데에, 이 판결의 중요한 의미가 있다. 다만, 위 퇴직금 명목 금원의 법적 성격에 관하여 부당이득설을 취한 대상판결에 의하더라도, 사용자와 근로자 사이에 임금과 구별되는 퇴직금의 지급을 약정하는 퇴직금 분할 약정의 존재 및 나아가 매월 임금과 구별하여 퇴직금 명목의 금원을 지급받은 것인지에 관한 판단은 여전히 필요하다. 그 판단기준의 정립 및 구체화는 장차 이루어질 하급심 판결이나 그 당부 판단을 통한 대법원 판례의 몫으로 여전히 남겨져 있음을 밝혀둔다. The Court ruled that monies paid to employees separate from the monthly or daily wages in the name of severance pay in accordance with a severance pay installment agreement that is void amount to unjust enrichment and that the employer is allowed to offset the employee’s claim for severance pay against the employer’s claim for unjust enrichment, limited to the portion over and above one-half (1/2) of the amount of the claim for severance pay. This ruling would serve as an important guidance for the lower courts. First and foremost, the decision reaffirmed that a severance installment agreement between an employer and an employee whereby an employer would pay an employee a specified amount of monies as severance pay along with wages paid monthly or daily, unless the agreement is recognized as a valid interim adjustment of severance pay under the Labor Standards Act, would be null and void in violation of the mandatory rule regarding the severance pay system of the Labor Standards Act because the employee would be relinquishing in advance his or her entitlement to severance pay that arises at the time of retirement. Without the Supreme Court’s explicit determination on whether monies actually paid by an employer in the name of severance pay under a void severance installment agreement, as stated above, would constitute unjust enrichment and, if they do constitute unjust enrichment, whether it is permissible to offset the claim for employee’s claim for severance pay against employer’s claim for unjust enrichment, there exist inconsistencies in the case law in the courts below and disorder in practice. Therefore, a clear judgment from the Supreme Court was strongly called for in order to unify the inconsistent practices of the lower courts by providing them with guidelines. In this light, the decision holds its significance in that it clarified the Court’s opinion that regarding the said issue the monies actually paid by an employer to an employee along with the monthly or daily wages in the name of severance pay in accordance with a severance installment agreement that is void would not constitute severance pay nor wages but would constitute unjust enrichment, which the employee shall return the employer, and further that the offset of the employee’s claim for severance pay by the employer’s claim for the said unjust enrichment is limited to the portion in excess of the one-half (1/2) of the claim for severance pay. Nonetheless, even following the holding which applied the theory of unjust enrichment with respect to the legal nature of the said monies in the name of severance pay, determination would be due on the existence of a severance installment agreement between the employer and the employee which stipulates on the payment of severance pay distinct from wages and on the existence of payment of monies in the name of severance pay distinct from monthly wages. The criteria forsuch determination are yet to be developed and defined by future decisions of the lower courts as well as those of the Supreme Court reviewing the former.
-
-
-
-
한국 자유중국 일본인 초 중 고교생의 체격비교에 관한 연구
박순영,홍상래 한국보건통계학회 1984 보건정보통계학회지 Vol.9 No.1
On the basis of the presented data which took boy and girlstudents as their subjects in Korea, Japan (1978) and Free China (1978), the author intended to compare and analyze the physique-growth statues by age and sex. For that purpose, I had investigated the physical growths (body-height, body-weight and chest-girth) of the three nation' students during March 1 in 1983 to August 31 with the application of the medians of Korea, Free China and Japan. The results are as follows: Ⅰ. Body-height (cm) In case of male, Korean students are superior in their body heights to Japanese students when they are before the year 12.5 and after the year 17; but, during 12.5 to 17, Japanese students are taller. Students of Free China are all inferior to these of Korea and Japan through all these ages. In case of girl students, Koreans are taller than Japanese when they are before the year 11.5 and after the year 15; while Japanese are taller during the year 11.5 to 15. Chinese are inferior in their heights to Koreans and Japanese until before the rear 15, but superior after that age. The interesting ages of the heights between male and female are the age 9.5 ─ 11.5 in Korea, 9.5 ─ 12.5 in Free China, and 9.5 ─ 12.5 in Japan. During this period, girls are taller than boys. but after this period boys are taller than girls. Maximal-growth age (M.G.A.) per year for male are the age 11 ─ 12 (6.61 cm), 12 ─ 12 (7.70 cm), and 12 ─ 13 (7.5cm), respectively, and those for female are the age 9 ─ 10 (5.82 cm), 10 ─ 11 (6.16 cm), and 10 ─ 11 (7.2 cm); of Korean students, MGA appears a year earlier than of Free China and Japan. Ⅱ. Body Weight (kg) In case of male. Korean and Japanese students show similar growing degrees through all the ages, and the students of Free China indicate a little lower degree than Koreans and Japanese. In case of female, the similar phenomena are showed. The intersecting ages of the weights between male and female are the ages 9.5 ─ 12.5 in Korea, 10.5 ─ 12.5 in Free China, and 9.5 ─ 13 in Japan. The MGA per year for male is the ages 13 ─ 14 (6.18 kg) in Korea, 12 ─ 13 (6.01 kg) infree China, and 12 ─ 13 (5.7 kg) in Japan, while the MGA per year for female are the ages 11 ─ 12 (5.02 kg) in Korea, 11 ─ 12 (4,64 kg) in Free China, and 10 ─ 11 (5.2kg) in Japan. Ⅲ. Chest Girth (cm) In case of boy students Japanese except in the age 10.5 to 12 are superior in chest-girth to Koreans. Students of Free China are a little inferior in chest-girth to Koreans and Japanese through all the ages. In case of girl students, Korean except in the age 10.5 to 13.5, are superior in chest-girth to Japanese. Girl students of Free China show the similar phenomena as boy students. The intersecting ages of the chest-girth between male and female are the ages 10.5 ─ 13.5 in Korea, 11.5 ─ 13.5 in Free China, and 10.5 ─ 13.5 in Japan. During these ages, girls are taller in shest-girth than boys, but except these ages boys excel girls. The MGA per year for male is the ages 13 ─ 14 (5.19 cm) in Korea, 12 ─ 13 (4.49 cm) in Free China, and 12 ─ 13 or 13 ─ 14 (3.7 cm) in Japan. That for female is the ages 11 ─ 12 (93.86 cm) in Korea 12 ─ 13 (4.19 cm) in Free China, and 10 ─ 11 (4.3 cm) in Japan. The MGA of japanese are around a year earlier than the other two nation.
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
