파견과 다른 형태의 제3자 관련 노무공급에 관한 구별기준과 법적 문제 = Distinction Criteria and Legal Issues on Dispatch and Labor Supply of Other Forms in relation to Third Parties

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 신현석, "파견근로관계의 존속보호에 대한 헌법적 근거 -파견근로자와 사용사업주의 관계를 중심으로-" 한국법학원 161 : 45-75, 2017

2 박지순, "파견과 도급의 구별에 관한 법리 — 대법원 2010.7.22. 선고 2008두4367 판결 및 2012.2.23. 선고 2011두7076 판결을 중심으로 —" 안암법학회 (38) : 267-312, 2012

3 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 2000

4 최홍엽, "위장도급에 대한 노도오간계법의 적용" 민주주의법학연구회 0 (0): 336-370, 2004

5 이승길, "업종별 도급과 파견의 구별에 관한 담론* - KTX 여승무원에 관련한 업무도급의 적격성 여부 및 근로자파견관계의 성립 여부를 중심으로 - 대상판결 (1) 대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2011다78316 판결 (2) 대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2012다96922 판결" 한국고용노사관계학회 25 (25): 27-58, 2015

6 한광수, "사내하도급과 근로자파견의 구별기준과 법적 효과의 문제" 한국비교노동법학회 31 : 675-727, 2014

7 강성태, "불법파견의 형사책임 - 대법원 2013. 2. 28. 선고 2011도34 판결 -" 한국노동연구원 2013

8 김준호, "민법강의" 법문사 2017

9 강보라, "묵시적 근로계약관계 법리와 불법파견을 중심으로 본 KTX 승무업무의 법적 성질-대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2011다78316 판결-" 서울대학교 법학평론 편집위원회, 박영사 2016

10 이정, "도급과 파견의 구별기준에 관한 법리 ― 판례의 변천과 문제점을 중심으로 ―" 한국비교노동법학회 34 : 237-270, 2015

11 전형배, "대법원 판례의 위장도급 유형 판단기준" 한국노동법학회 (36) : 507-548, 2010

12 박수근, "노동법에서의 파견근로자의 보호" 2011

13 김기선, "근로자파견의 판단- 대법원 2015. 02. 26. 선고 2010다93707 판결 -" 한국노동연구원 2015

14 조임영, "근로자파견관계의 판단방식과 기준" 서울대학교노동법연구회 (22) : 151-180, 2007

15 김기선, "근로자파견과 도급의 판단 ― 독일에서의 논의를 중심으로 ―" 서울대학교노동법연구회 (31) : 51-107, 2011

16 박종희, "근로기준법상 근로자개념 ―근로기준법의 적용확대와 선별적용과 관련하여―" 한국노동법학회 (16) : 2003

17 김홍영, "KTX 여승무원의 실질적 사용자가 철도공사인지 여부- 대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2011다78316 판결; 대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2012다96922판결 -" 한국노동연구원 2015

18 박제성, "KTX 승무원 사내하청:사실과 논리에서 의견과 신념으로 - 서울고등법원2012. 10. 5. 선고 2011나78974 판결 -" 한국노동연구원 2013

19 강선희, "H자동차 아산공장 모든 공정의 사내하도급근로자는 도급으로 위장된 파견근로자이다- 대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2010다106436 판결 -" 한국노동연구원 2015