간이회생절차의 주요 내용과 신청방법

박승두(Park, Seung-Du) 경희법학연구소 2016 경희법학 Vol.51 No.2

채무자회생법에서규정하고있는회생절차는채무자의성격및채무액을기준으로, 개인회생절차와기업회생절차로나눌수있다. 그리고2014년12월30일개정시에는기업회생절차에해당하더라도30억이하의경우에는간이회생절차로분리하여간편한절차를거치도록하였다. 간이회생절차가 신설되기 전에도 중소기업의 회생절차에 대하여는 여러 가지 특칙을 두고있었음에도불구하고, 절차의간편 신속한진행에는크게기여하지못하였다. 이러한현실을반영하여, 채무자회생법은2014년개정에서일본의민사재생법등을참조하여획기적으로개선하였다. 이연구는 시행1주년을맞이하는 시점에, 간이회생절차의 주요내용을 살펴보고, 구체적인 신청방법을 정리하였으며, 필자 나름대로 몇 가지 개선방안을 제시함으로써, 이 절차의효율적이고 합리적인 운용에 기여하고자 한다. 간이회생절차의 주요 내용은, ① 30억원 이하의 채무를 가지는 소액영업소득자를 대상으로하였으며, ②회생계획안에관한회생채권자의가결요건을완화하였고, ③관리위원이나법원사무관 등으로 하여금 간이한 방법으로 조사업무를 수행하게 할 수 있으며, ④ 관리인도 선임하지 않을 수 있게 한 것이다. 그리고 간이회생절차개시의 신청방법은 ① 채무자가 개인인 경우에는 채무자의 성명·주민등록번호 및 주소, ② 채무자가 개인이 아닌 경우에는 채무자의 상호, 주된 사무소 또는영업소의 소재지, 채무자의 대표자의 성명, ③ 간이회생절차개시의 신청을 구하는 취지 등을 기재한 서면으로 하여야 한다. 마지막으로 개선방안으로는 ① 회생절차 상호간의 관계정립, ② 적용대상의 형평성 제고,③ 가결요건의 완화, ④ 신청권자의 확대 등이다. The rehabilitation proceedings are categorized into individual rehabilitation proceedings and corporate rehabilitation proceedings depending on the types of creditor. The amendment bill of Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act(DRBA), December, 30, 2014. stipulates that corporate rehabilitation proceedings can be replaced by simplified rehabilitation proceedings for debts not exceeding 3 billion won. This paper aims to study the major contents of simplified rehabilitation proceedings which has been enacted for 1 year so far and help this proceedings run in more effective and reasonable ways by organizing the ways to apply this proceedings. The major contents of simplified rehabilitating proceedings are as follows: ① Managerial staff or court officials, instead of lawyers or accounting firm, can investigate in simplified ways, ② In assembly of related persons, it is considered that rehabilitation plans are approved in cases when voters who has more than two thirds of total sum of rehabilitation creditor s voting rights consented or voters who has more than a half of rehabilitation creditor s voting rights consented. And when applying to begin simplified rehabilitation proceedings, it is needed to fill out the form with the following information: ① the name of individual debtor, and his/her social security number and address ② the name of firm, head office or the hocation of business office, the name of debtor s representative when debtor is non-individual ③ the purpose of applying for simplified rehabilitation proceedings ④ the cause of applying simplified rehabilitation proceedings ⑤ debtor s business activities and his/her financial conditions ⑥ the amount of debt and evidence that proves they are small business income earners ⑦ an expression of his/her intention for applying to begin rehabilitation proceedings.

노동조합 대표자의 단체협약체결권에 관한 연구

박승두 ( Seung Du Park ) 청주대학교 법학과 2008 法學論集 Vol.30 No.1

기업회생절차상 ‘한국형 Prepack제도’(P-Plan)의 개선 방안

박승두(Park, Seung Du) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.57 No.-

2017년 대우조선의 경영합리화를 추진하는 과정에서 기업회생절차상 Prepack제도를 더욱 신속하고 효율적으로 진행하기 위한 ‘한국형 Prepack제도’(다음부터 ‘P-Plan’이라 한다)가 제안되어 시행되고 있다 그러나 현행 P-Plan제도는 ① 신청요건의 엄격한 제한, ② 사전회생계획안 제출시기에 대한 과도한 제한, ③ 절차의 신속한 진행을 위한 규정의 부재 등으로 제 기능을 못하고 있다. 따라서 이 연구는 이러한 문제점들을 해결하면서 효율적으로 기업을 회생시키는 P-Plan을 더욱 효율적으로 운용하기 위한 방안을 다음과 같이 제시한다. ① 주채권자와 채무자가 사전에 협의하여 회생방안을 정한다. ② 주채권자의 실사를 받는다. ③ 회생절차 신청시 사전회생계획안, 실사보고서, 신규자금지원의향서 등을 제출할 수 있다. ④ 채권자가 사전에 회생계획안에 동의한 경우 그 효력을 인정한다. ⑤ 회생절차 신청시 제출한 실사보고서를 조사보고서로 갈음할 수 있다. ⑥ 법원에서는 채권확정, 회생계획안 의결 등의 절차를 신속하게 진행한다. ⑦ 회생절차를 조기에 종결하고, 주채권자의 관리를 받도록 한다. In 2017, ‘Korean Prepackaged Bankruptcy’ (hereafter, P-Plan) has been stressed under Corporate Rehabilitation Proceedings of Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Corporation for the effective and fast progress of business rationalization. The plan is believed to overcome the weaknesses of the Work-Out rule and resolve several problems of Rehabilitation Proceedings. However, the current P-plan rule cannot exercise its own role because: the strict regulation of application condition; restriction of submission period of Rehabilitation Proceedings; and lack of proper rules which can accelerate the procedure. From this perspective, the paper suggests P-Plan with the following process: ① the system is prioritized the core industry of national economy, not for all debtors. ② before the rule is applied, primary meeting by debtors, creditors, and court have to have consultations. ③ conduct a due diligence by main creditors. ④ establish a Rehabilitation Plan and get the creditor’s consent before the system starts. ⑤ in addition to essential documents, necessary reports, for instance, a report of due diligence, a prepackaged plan for Rehabilitation, and a letter of intent for new funds should be submitted. ⑥ the Court has to initiate the Rehabilitation process. ⑦ the process targets early termination, and main creditors exercise their authorities.

판례평석논문 : 출자전환(出資轉換)으로 취득한 주식(株式)의 시가 이하 계상을 이유로 한 법인세부과처분(法人稅賦課處分) 관련 판결(判決)의 불당성(不當性) -대상판결(對象判決): 서울행정법원, 2011.12.16 선고, 2011구합11785 판결 및 서울고등법원, 2012.06.13 선고, 2012누463 판결-

박승두 ( Seung Du Park ),배영석 ( Yeong Seok Bae ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2013 法學論集 Vol.18 No.1

주식회사 농협은행(이하 "농협"이라 함)은 채권금융기관의 약정에 따라 LG카드 주식회사(이하 "LG카드"라 함)의 경영정상화를 지원하기 위하여 2004년 및 2005년에 3차에 걸쳐서 기존 대출금채권을 주식으로 전환하는 출자전환(이하 "본건 출자전환"이라 함)을 행하였다. 농협이 출자전환으로 LG카드의 주식을 취득하면서 그 취득가액을 거래소 종가를 기준으로 하지 않고 한국채권평가 주식회사의 비시장성지분증권평가액 등으로 평가 하였다. 이에 대하여 과세관청은 주식의 취득가액을 과소 계상하였다는 이유로 그 평가차액을 익금산입한 후 법인세 및 가산세를 부과하였다. 이에 대하여 농협은 본건 과세처분이 부당하다는 이유로 서울행정법원에 취소소송을 제기하였으나 패소하였고, 다시 서울고등법원에 항소하였으나 역시 패소하여, 현재 대법원에 계류중이다(이하 본건 과세처분과 관련한 일련의 사건을 "이 사건"이라 함). 그러나 법인세법이나 동법시행령 어느 규정에 의하더라도 주식 취득가액의 과소 계상이 익금산입의 사유가 되지 아니한다. 따라서 과세관청의 본건 처분은 적법요건에 따라 과세하지 않은 위법한 처분이다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 대상판결(서울행정법원의 제1심 판결 및 서울고등법원의 제2심 판결)은 이 사건의 쟁점을 제대로 이해하지 못한 채 위법한 본건 처분을 정당한 것으로 평가하는 오류를 범하였다. 본건 과세처분의 쟁점은 ``출자전환주식의 취득가액 과소계상 문제``가 아니라 ``출자전환 시 계상한 대손금의 손금인정성 문제``이다. 그럼에도 대상판결에서는 후자는 아예 심리하지 않고 전자만을 본건 과세처분의 쟁점이라고 보고 심리를 하였고, 따라서 이 점에서 대상판결은 잘못된 판결로 보인다. 또한 본건 출자전환은 상계에 의한 주금납입방식의 증자 참여인데도, 대상판결은 본건 출자전환의 본질을 제대로 파악하지도 않은 채 출자전환 당시의 법인세법시행령 제72조 제1항 제4호의 규정이 적용된다고 보아, 시가에 의하여 출자전환주식의 취득가액을 계상하여야 한다고 전제하고 심리한 것도 잘못이다. 더욱이 2차 출자전환의 경우 농협이 액면가액에 출자전환하여 신주를 취득한 것에 불과한데도 이 증자 과정에서 LG카드가 농협에 1주당 550원 만큼을 증여한 것으로 보아 본건 과세처분을 한 것은 어떠한 이유로도 설명될 수 없다. 즉, 이 사건의 핵심쟁점은 "농협이 출자전환으로 취득한 LG카드 주식의 취득가액을 거래소 종가를 기준으로 평가하지 않은 것이 법인세 부과요건에 해당하느냐"하는 것인데, 이에 관하여는 아무런 검토도 하지 아니한 채 본건 처분의 적법성을 인정한 부당한 판결을 내렸으므로, 이 판결은 당연히 대법원에서 파기환송되어야 한다. NH Bank recently acquired the stocks of LG Card through debt-for-equity swap, appraising the acquisition cost not based on the closing price of the stock exchange but on Korea Asset Pricing`s estimation on non-marketable equity securities. In regard to this, stating that the bank undervalued the stock acquisition price, the taxing authorities ordered that NH Bank pay additional tax default, along with the corporate tax imposed with the cost differential between the two stock prices included in its gross income. However, there are no law clauses in Corporate Tax Act or its Enforcement Decree to support the decision to make the bank`s undervaluation to become a reason to put the differential in NH Bank`s gross income and make the bank pay more. Therefore, the taxing office`s ruling in this case was illegal, not having enough legitimacy in its nature while lacking accordance with the necessary procedures. The judgments, first by Seoul Administrative Court and then by the Seoul High Court, seem to have been rendered while the courts were not fully aware of the crucial points in the case. The more important issue in the disposition is not the ``undervaluation of NH Bank`s stock acquisition`` itself but ``whether to include the uncollectable accounts occurred at the debt-for-equity exchange in deductible expenses.`` Nevertheless, the courts regarded the former matter as the only point of interest and left the latter completely untouched. It was also a mistake that the courts presupposed the stock acquisition price should have been based on the market value according to Item 4 of Para. 1 of Art. 72 of the Enforcement Decree although the debt-for equity exchange in this case was actually NH Bank`s participation in LG Card`s capital increase, carried out in the form of payment of stocks. Furthermore, the second debt-for-equity swap of NH Bank was merely an acquisition of the new stocks through debt-for-equity exchanging at the stocks` face amount, but the court saw it that LG Card gave NH Bank 550 won per share-when simply put, the courts thought the bank gained 550 won per share by its participation in capital increase-and ordered a taxation disposition, a verdict that cannot be accepted nor be explained by any means. The real point at issue in the case is ``whether NH Bank`s evaluation and declaration of the stock acquisition price should be subject to the imposition of corporate tax, since the amount was not based on the closing price of the stock market.`` Considering it was never dealt with during the trials, the verdict might as well be reversed and quashed.

기업회생절차상 과점주주의 제2차 납세의무에 관한 판결의 부당성 : 대상판례: 부산고등법원 2021. 11. 17. 선고 (창원)2021누10005 판결

박승두(Park, Seung Du) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2021 圓光法學 Vol.37 No.4

A회사는 회사의 경영사정이 어려워 법원에 회생절차 개시를 신청하였고, 이에 대하여 법원은 회생절차 개시결정과 회생계획 인가결정을 거쳐 회생절차 종결결정을 내려 회생절차가 완전히 종료되었다. 그런데 A회사는 체납법인의 과점주주로서 체납법인의 체납조세에 대하여 제2차 납세의무를 부담하고 있었는데, 과세관청은 A회사에 대한 회생절차 종결결정이 내려진 후에 A회사를 제2차 납세의무자로 지정하고 이 사건 조세처분을 내렸다. 이에 대하여 대상판례는 이 사건 조세채권을 공익채권으로 인정하였는데, 이는 다음의 이유로 위법하다. 이 사건 조세채권은 회생절차 개시결정 전에 성립하였으므로 채무자회생법상 회생채권에 해당한다. 그럼에도 불구하고 과세관청은 A회사에 대한 납부처분을 하지 아니하였고, 회생채권자로서 신고절차도 행하지 아니한 채 회생절차 종결결정이 내려진 후에 제2차 납세의무자로 지정하고 이 사건 조세처분을 내렸다. 이 사건 조세채권은 회생채권이었으나 과세관청이 회생채권자로서 권리를 행사하지 아니한 채 A회사의 회생계획이 인가되었고, 이로써 회생계획에 의하여 인정된 권리를 제외하고 모두 면책되었다. 따라서 이 사건 조세채권도 소멸되었고, A회사에 대한 회생계획이 인가된 후 과세관청이 한 납부처분은 소멸된 권리에 기초한 것으로 무효이다. 그리고 A회사에 대한 회생절차가 종결된 이후에는 회생계획에 의하여 인정된 권리를 제외하고 면책되므로, 회생계획에 의하여 인정된 권리를 제외한 모든 채권자는 A회사에 대하여 채권을 청구할 수 없다. 만약 조세채권에 대하여만 이를 허용하게 되면, 재정적 어려움으로 인하여 파탄에 직면해 있는 채무자에 대하여 이해관계인의 법률관계를 조정하여 채무자 또는 그 사업의 효율적인 회생을 도모하는 채무자회생법의 목적(제1조)을 실현할 수 없으며, 공정･형평성과 평등의 원칙에도 반하게 된다. 나아가, 조세채권이 과세관청의 부과처분시기 조정에 따라 공익채권으로 될 수 있는 가능성을 허용하면 조세채권의 범위가 넓어질 수 있게 된다. 이는 다른 회생채권자 또는 공익채권자들에게 불이익을 초래하게 되므로 적절하지 아니하다. 더구나 과세관청의 부과처분 시기의 조정이나 부과처분의 태만에 의하여 공익채권으로 되는 조세채권의 범위가 부당하게 확장되게 되는 불합리가 발생할 수 있다. 그러므로 회생절차 개시전에 성립한 조세채권에 대하여 회생계획 인가후에 행한 부과처분은 과세권을 상실하여 무효이다. Company A applied to the court for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures due to difficulties in the company s management, and in response, the court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures and approve the rehabilitation plan, and the rehabilitation procedure was completely terminated. However, Company A, as an oligopolistic shareholder of the delinquent corporation, was obligated to pay the second tax on the delinquent tax of the delinquent corporation, and the tax office designated Company A as the second taxpayer and imposed the tax disposition. In response, the target precedent recognized the tax bonds in this case as public interest bonds, which are illegal for the following reasons. Since the tax claim in this case was established before the decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure, it corresponds to the rehabilitation claim under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Nevertheless, the tax office has not made a payment disposition to Company a, and as a rehabilitation creditor, it is designated as the second taxpayer after the decision to terminate the rehabilitation procedure without performing the reporting procedure. The tax claim in this case was a rehabilitation claim, but Company A s rehabilitation plan was approved without the tax office exercising its rights as a rehabilitation creditor, and all tax claims in this case were extinguished, and after the rehabilitation plan was approved. In addition, after the rehabilitation procedure for Company A is completed, all creditors except the rights recognized by the rehabilitation plan are exempted, so all creditors except the rights recognized by the rehabilitation plan cannot claim claims against Company A. If only tax bonds are allowed, the purpose of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act to promote efficient rehabilitation of debtors or their businesses(Article 1) cannot be realized by adjusting the legal relationship of interested parties to debtors facing bankruptcy due to financial difficulties. Furthermore, if the possibility that tax bonds can become public interest bonds is allowed according to the adjustment of the timing of imposition by the tax office, the scope of tax bonds can be expanded. This is not appropriate because it will cause disadvantages to other rehabilitation creditors or public interest creditors. Moreover, irrationality may arise in which the scope of tax bonds that become public interest bonds is unfairly expanded due to adjustment of the timing of the imposition disposition by the tax office or negligence of the imposition disposition. Therefore, the imposition of tax bonds established before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures after approval of the rehabilitation plan is invalid because the taxation right is lost.

일반논문 : 출자전환시 채무의 소멸성에 관한 연구

박승두 ( Seung Du Park ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2013 法學硏究 Vol.21 No.4

채무자회생법상 기업회생절차, 기업개선절차, 기업구조조정촉진법상의 절차 등에서 자주 활용되는 출자전환을 둘러싸고 많은 법적 쟁점이 제기되고 있는데, 그 중에서 출자전환에 따라 기존 채무가 과연 어느 정도 소멸하느냐 하는 ‘채무의 소멸성’에 관한 논의는 아직도 결론이 내려지지 못하고 있다. 즉, 기업회생절차에서의 출자전환에 대하여 학설은 전액소멸설과 일부소멸설로 나누어지고 있으나, 판례는 일부소멸설을 취하고 있다. 그리고 기업개선절차에서의 출자전환에 관하여 학설은 구체적 언급이 없으나, 판례는 전부소멸설을 따른다. 마지막 기업구조조정촉진절차에서의 출자전환에 대하여도 학설은 구체적 언급이 없으나, 판례는 전부소멸설을 따른다. 반면, 재정경제부 유권해석은 기업회생절차, 기업개선절차, 기업구조조정촉진절차 그 밖의 상법상 절차 등을 구분하지 않고 모두 출자전환시에는 일부소멸설을 따르고 있다. 이처럼 출자전환시 채무의 소멸에 관하여 이론과 실무가 정립되지 못하고 있어, 출자전환되는 채무의 이행을 위하여 보증한 자의 책임범위가 명확하지 않고, 출자전환으로 채무를 변제하는 대신 주식을 발행 교부한 기업이나 기존의 채권을 변제받는 대신에 주식을 발행 교부받은 기업의 회계 세무처리도 혼란을 초래하고 있다. 따라서 이 연구는 이에 관한 합리적 해석기준을 제시하여, 실무 운용상 이해당사자 모두에게 공평한 처리에 기여하고자 한다. 이에 관하여 필자는 기업회생절차, 기업개선절차, 기업구조조정촉진절차 모두 출자전환에 의하여 소멸되는 채무는 해당 주식의 평가액으로 보아야 한다고 생각한다. 첫째,첫째, 이들 절차를 신청한 기업에 대한 출자전환의 성격이 모두 정상적인 거래행위라 볼 수 없다. 왜냐하면, 모두 현재 과다채무로 재무적 어려움에 처한 기업에 대하여 채무를 줄여 회생을 지원하기 위한 방안이라는 점이다. 따라서 이는 근본적으로 채무자인 기업의 이익을 위한 것이다. 둘째, 이들 절차를 신청한 기업에 대하여 가진 채권의 가치를 보면, 해당 기업에 대하여 담보권을 가진 자는 담보권자로서 청산가치를 보장받을 수 있고, 해당 기업에 담보권을 가지지 않았다고 하더라도 제3의 물적 담보권 혹은 보증인을 가진 채권의 가치는 그에 상응한 평가를 받을 수 있으며 현실적으로 채권을 변제받을 가능성이 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 해당 기업으로부터 가치가 거의 없는 주식을 출자전환 받았다고 하여 기존의 모든 채권이 소멸한다는 것은 이론적으로나 현실적으로 성립할 수 없는 주장이다. 셋째, 이들 출자전환 절차상 주식인수대금의 납입과 채권의 변제를 서로 상계하는 것으로 처리하였다거나, 출자전환되는 채권 모두가 형식상 출자전환되는 채권 전액을 주식의 인수대금으로 보느냐 여부는 채권 소멸의 본질을 평가하는 기준이 될 수 없다. 따라서 이들 절차에서의 출자전환시 소멸되는 채무는 모두 출자전환 당시의 주식 평가액이라고 보는 일부 소멸설이 타당하다고 생각한다. 더욱 명확히 하기 위하여는 주식과 채권을 동시에 평가하여 동등가치 만큼 채무가 소멸한다고 보아야 한다. There have been plenty of legal issues surrounding debt-for-equity swaps hat took place during the processes of corpora e rehabilitation under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, workouts and the proceedings wlder the Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act. The debate on ``the extinction of a debt`` I among the issues, also has not come to a con lusion as to how much debt can be eliminated through such debt-far-equity swaps. That is, while the theorists take it that the debt-far-equity swap in corporate rehabilitation can lead a company 0 either partial or total elimination of debt, precedents show that the courts stand only for the partial extinction of debt. Also theories do not have a clear stance for the deb -for-equity swaps in corporate workouts. but the precedents sho that the judges endorse the total extinction of debt. The same goes for the application of the corporate restructuring promotion act; no specific theoretical support from legal specialists are provided. but the court stands in favor of the total debt extinction for debt-far-equity swaps in this process. However, ac ording to the authoritative interpretation of Ministry of Finance and Economy, the debt can only be partially eliminated through debt-for-equity swaps no matter wha kinds of circumstances they have taken place in. Due to the gap between the theory and its practicali y. the boundary that defines the responsibilities oC guaran ors stays unclear, creating confusion both for the companies that issued stocks ins ead of paying off their debt and the ones that received shares instead of receiving reimbursement for their bonds. The purpose of this study is to provide a reasonable interpretation standard regarding this issue and to contribute to providing fair proceedings for all the parties concerned. Under all three circumstances. whether a debt-far-equity swap " as decided In the process of corporate rehabilitation, workout or corporate restructuring promotion, the debt eliminated through the debt-far-equity swap should be considered as the appraised value of the stock. 2. the bonds of a company that requested for these rescue proceedings were evaluated, a security right holder can be assured that the claim for rus or her possession of the company`s liqujdation value is guaranteed. The bonds with the third real se urity right holders or guarantors will be evaluated correspondingly, and even those without the security rights on the company will stand a better chance to receive reimbursement. It is not theoretically nor practically reasonable to state that the valueless stocks issued through a debt-for-equi y swap can elirrunate the whole debt of a compan . Furthermore, onsidering a shareholder`s payment for the stock acquisition and the company`s reimbursement for the corporate bonds to be compensating, or seeing the total amount of the corporate bond as the gross price for stock acquisition are irrelevant to he establishment of a standard that would help evaluate th nature of debt extinction. Therefore, it would be proper to say hat the debt extinction through debt-far-equity swaps in these processes is only subject to partial elirrunation of debt based on the stock appraisal done at the point of the debt-far-equity swap. Therefore, it would be proper to say that the debt extinction through debt-far-equity swaps in these processes is only subject to partial elimination of debt based on the stock appraisal done at he point of the deb -for-equity swap.

출퇴근 재해의 인정 기준

박승두(Park, Seung-Du) 한국노동법학회 2015 노동법학 Vol.0 No.53

일본의 회사갱생절차상 해고 관련 판례 평석

박승두(Park, Seung-Du) 한국노동법학회 2014 노동법학 Vol.0 No.51

In recent, the Tokyo District Court made a decision on the case of JAL’s laying- off(hereinafter called as “This Case”) where the reorganizing trustee of the company that applied for corporate reorganization proceedings laid off employees. This is the first case that brought controversy over the legitimacy of redundancy dismissal made by trustee based on reorganizing plan. This may help us get the clear picture of redundancy dismissal case of SSangyong Motors on corporate reorganization proceedings in Korea. Followings are what Japanese academic field views on the This Case, and my own interpretation. First, it is agreeable that laying-off is unavoidable in corporate reorganization proceedings. However, this doesn’t mean that all companies can freely lay off employees. They should consider the necessity of laying off and take various factors into account for the magnitude of layoff. Second, massive severance pay can be an obstacle to corporate reorganization, or, it can be an infringement of creditor’s property rights. It may cause the rejection of reorganizing plan due to objections from the creditors. Third, This Case implies that age and disease are reasonable standard for designating the workers who are to be laid off. However, age should be excluded to be the standard for it violates the constitutional rights of equality. Fourth, we have to apply the flexible principle of interest balancing as there are time limits for reorganization proceedings. Fifth, according to Corporate Reorganization Act, reorganizing plan has the same effect as the final ruling. Thus, when they lay off employees based on their regulation they made, it must be considered as final decision. Considering the factors mentioned above, This Case can be seen as agreeable in general, but it must be invalid as it violates the constitutional rights of equality when they apply age as a standard for designating the workers who are to be laid off. Although laying off was inevitable for the company in reorganization proceedings, and agreeable because it was done based on the reorganizing plan which has the same effect as the final ruling, there must be some people who laid off and fell victims because the standard of designating the workers who are to be laid off is unconstitutional. Thus, This Case must be invalid as it violates the constitutional rights for humanlike life and work and equality.

노사관계로드맵 17년의 평가와 전망

박승두(Park, Seung-Du) 한국노동법학회 2011 노동법학 Vol.0 No.39

It can be considered that the history of the labor relations Road Map in Korea has commenced with the labor relations road map of the former Korean President, Rho Moo-hyun in 2003. In effect, however, the reform of the labor relations or labor laws began during the term of the former President Kim Young-sam. To investigate the procedure, the vicious cycle has repeated as follows: ① the announcement of the neo-labor relations initiative (1994) → ② labor legislation in a lightning manner in the absence of the opposition (1996) → ③ opposing struggle of the labor world (1996~1997) → ④ legislation on the mutual agreement of the ins and outs (1997) → ⑤ postponement of the enforcement on a point in dispute (2001) → ⑥ promotion of the labor relations road map (2003) → ⑦ postponement of the enforcement on a point in dispute (2006) → ⑧ coercive proceeding of the enforcement by the government (2009) → ⑨ opposing struggle of the labor world (2009) → ⑩ failure of the coercive enforcement of the legislation (2009) → ⑪ postponement of the enforcement on coercive legislature and a point in dispute(2010). Regarding with the amended “Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act” in 2010, ① the ban on the salary payment for the ones with exclusive duties for the trade union enforced on July 1st, 2010 with the forbearance until June 30th, 2010. Instead, the exemption system for the working time-off was introduced. ② The approval of multiple trade unions will be enforced on July 1st, 2011 with the forbearance until June 30th, 2010. In a business or an establishment regardless of the organization forms as of December 31st, 2009, the enforcement of the law will be postponed until June 30th, 2012 for the pertinent business or establishment where are more than two trade unions that workers have established or became members of. The prospect after this enforced law can be contemplated from three points of views, such as ① controversy of the unconstitutional legislation, ② instability of the labor relations, ③ direction of the trade union’s activities, etc. First of all, an unconstitutionality issue has been raised on the unitary wicket system of the negotiation newly introduced, while allowing multiple trade unions. Even though the arguments of its constitutionality and unconstitutionality are set up in opposition, the assertion for constitutionality lacks adequacy and the newly organized executives of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions are against it, triggering ongoing controversy. Second of all, even though the Ministry of Employment and Labor thinks that the exemption system of time-off has settled stably, it should be considered that the instability of the labor and management is concealed according to the trade union’s certain attitude every time revising a collective agreement, which will have been expired, is required. Even if it is properly enforced, there is a high possibility that labor and management confrontation on the interpretation of the allowed business, when it is operated similarly like the predecessor’s system or there, is a collective agreement or a user’s agreement. Lastly, it is considered that the new trade unions should be able to search for their direction of activities, as unlimited competitions among the trade unions are expected since multiple labor and management establishments will be allowed starting July 1st, 2011.

채무자회생법과 노동법의 관계

박승두(Park Seung-Du) 한국노동법학회 2010 노동법학 Vol.0 No.35

The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act(The Debtor Rehabilitation Act) stipulates the rehabilitation and the bankruptcy proceeding to settle the debt and credit relationships for the debtor when the debtor is under bankruptcy conditions or on the verge of it. The Labor Law stipulates the procedure and the process specifically to materialize the labor rights guaranteed in the constitution. The labor law guarantees the three rights of labor for workers, which guard the rights by their united force. The Labor Standard Act shelters the bare minimum working condition for maintaining human life. This article specifically delves into four viewpoints for the rights of company workers undergoing the rehabilitation and the bankruptcy proceeding according to the Debtor Rehabilitation Act in terms of the relationship between ‘the Debtor rehabilitation Act and the Labor Law.’ First, a trustee in the rehabilitation proceeding or bankruptcy trustee undertakes the management when a company undergoes the rehabilitation or bankruptcy proceeding. In so doing, a concern arises with regard to the continuation or the automatic termination of existing labor relations. Second, when a company respects every step stipulated in the Debtor Rehabilitation Act and precedes the rehabilitation or the bankruptcy proceeding, a concern arises whether the conditions in the Labor Standard Act are equally exercised as are for ordinary companies for the termination of existing labor relations; that is, the dismissal of the workers, or the regulations in the Debtor Rehabilitation Act or exceptional interpretations should occur without fulfilling the conditions in the Labor Standard Act. Third, the Labor Standard Act and the Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act stipulate the prior payment for wage claims by workers. A concern which arises is whether such a wage claim can also be applicable during all procedures stipulated in the Debtor Rehabilitation Act such as rehabilitation or bankruptcy proceeding. Four, when a collective agreement which was made between users and labor union when the company was in a normal status subsists, a concern arises whether the validity of the existing collective agreement is still effective when the company assumes the rehabilitation or bankruptcy proceeding.