RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    제정 노동법의 주요내용과 특징 = 일본법과의 비교를 중심으로

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A99876598

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    This article aims to reflect on 60 years history of Korean Labour Law with a focus on what were the resemblances and differences between Japanese Labour Law and Korean First Labour Law. It is frequently said that Korean Labour Law is originated from Japanese legal system because of historical backgrounds. Whereas if you look at debates on enactment of Labour Law in the Constitutional National Assembly, there were important differences between them.
    The main Acts regulating personal employment and collective labour relations were ,so called “4 Labour Acts”, Labour Standard Act(LSA), Trade Union Act(TUA), Labour Commission Act(LCA) and Labor Dispute Adjustment Act(LDAA). All these acts were established 1953. These Acts had many similarities to Japanese Labour Law from the point of view on basic structure system and formation. Among these Acts, LSA and LCA had very high similarity than others and TUA had systemic parallel but also the characteristics tried to contribute administration and control to Trade Union.
    On the last part of this paper, I recommend to attend the one big difference that the First Constitution tried to regulate “Equal Right to Share Profits in the Private Company”(ERSPPC) in express terms. ERSPPC was the unique fundamental right of workers prescribed by the establishment of the Constitution which is not guaranteed in any other countries. In such a big distinction to Japanese Constitution, the similarity in formation and contents seems to be signified that “4 Labour Acts” in Korea failed to carry out a faithful discharge of the important Constitutional obligation of ERSPPC. This idea is more plain considering the Acts in Japan was far from the standards on International Labour Standards and decentralised nature of the international legal norms.
    We must deal with the issue of where the responsibility for what was a pros and cons in “4 Labour Acts” The purpose of researching a history of Labour Law is not to celebrate its enactments but to know why there was not the regulation all present and correct. Just as the saying goes, history always repeats itself.
    번역하기

    This article aims to reflect on 60 years history of Korean Labour Law with a focus on what were the resemblances and differences between Japanese Labour Law and Korean First Labour Law. It is frequently said that Korean Labour Law is originated from J...

    This article aims to reflect on 60 years history of Korean Labour Law with a focus on what were the resemblances and differences between Japanese Labour Law and Korean First Labour Law. It is frequently said that Korean Labour Law is originated from Japanese legal system because of historical backgrounds. Whereas if you look at debates on enactment of Labour Law in the Constitutional National Assembly, there were important differences between them.
    The main Acts regulating personal employment and collective labour relations were ,so called “4 Labour Acts”, Labour Standard Act(LSA), Trade Union Act(TUA), Labour Commission Act(LCA) and Labor Dispute Adjustment Act(LDAA). All these acts were established 1953. These Acts had many similarities to Japanese Labour Law from the point of view on basic structure system and formation. Among these Acts, LSA and LCA had very high similarity than others and TUA had systemic parallel but also the characteristics tried to contribute administration and control to Trade Union.
    On the last part of this paper, I recommend to attend the one big difference that the First Constitution tried to regulate “Equal Right to Share Profits in the Private Company”(ERSPPC) in express terms. ERSPPC was the unique fundamental right of workers prescribed by the establishment of the Constitution which is not guaranteed in any other countries. In such a big distinction to Japanese Constitution, the similarity in formation and contents seems to be signified that “4 Labour Acts” in Korea failed to carry out a faithful discharge of the important Constitutional obligation of ERSPPC. This idea is more plain considering the Acts in Japan was far from the standards on International Labour Standards and decentralised nature of the international legal norms.
    We must deal with the issue of where the responsibility for what was a pros and cons in “4 Labour Acts” The purpose of researching a history of Labour Law is not to celebrate its enactments but to know why there was not the regulation all present and correct. Just as the saying goes, history always repeats itself.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 김영상, "헌법을 싸고도는 국회풍경" 신천지 1948

    2 한국노동법학회, "한국노동법학회 창립40주년 기념 원로간담회" 한국노동법학회 (8) : 1998

    3 김진웅, "입법상으로 본 건국 이후의 노동정책의 변화, In 우리나라 행정정책에 관한 연구" 고대법률행정연구소 1970

    4 한몽연, "대한노총의 결성 전후 : 노동운동의 회고담(6)" 노동문제연구소 1972

    5 이흥재, "노동법제정의 특징과 전진한의 역할" 법학연구소 50 (50): 169-194, 2009

    6 이흥재, "노동법 제정과 전진한의 역할" 서울대학교출판문화원 2010

    7 김형배, "노동경제40년사,중 “노동법사”" 한국경영자총협회 1989

    1 김영상, "헌법을 싸고도는 국회풍경" 신천지 1948

    2 한국노동법학회, "한국노동법학회 창립40주년 기념 원로간담회" 한국노동법학회 (8) : 1998

    3 김진웅, "입법상으로 본 건국 이후의 노동정책의 변화, In 우리나라 행정정책에 관한 연구" 고대법률행정연구소 1970

    4 한몽연, "대한노총의 결성 전후 : 노동운동의 회고담(6)" 노동문제연구소 1972

    5 이흥재, "노동법제정의 특징과 전진한의 역할" 법학연구소 50 (50): 169-194, 2009

    6 이흥재, "노동법 제정과 전진한의 역할" 서울대학교출판문화원 2010

    7 김형배, "노동경제40년사,중 “노동법사”" 한국경영자총협회 1989

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2024 평가 계속평가 신청대상 (등재유지)
    2019-01-01 등재 우수등재학술지 선정 (계속평가)
    2016-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2012-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2009-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2007-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보2차) KCI등재후보
    2006-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2005-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보2차) KCI등재후보
    2004-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2003-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2001-07-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 1.09 1.09 0.99
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.89 0.82 1.527 0.28
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼