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 : 이일세 (검색결과 48 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
이일세 한국비교노동법학회 2018 노동법논총 Vol.44 No.-
In Korea, the minimum level of wages for workers is guaranteed in order to stabilize workers’ life and the quality of the labor force. In 2018, the minimum wage is 7,530 won, and in 2019 it will be increased by 10.9% to 8,350 won. Meanwhile, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gyeonggi Province and other local governments are implementing the living wage policy separately from the minimum wage, which is regulated by the municipal ordinance of the local governments. More specifically, 100 local governments nationwide enacted the regulations on living wages. Besides 5 metropolitan local governments – Daegu Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, Gyeongbuk Province, Gyeongnam Province, Chungbuk Province - 12 out of 17 metropolitan local governments enacted living wage regulations. In 2018, the metropolitan local government with the highest living wage is Jeonnam Province (9,370 won) and the lowest metropolitan local government is Sejong Special Self-Government City (7,920 won). In this regard, it is disputable whether it is illegal to regulate living wages as ordinances. In this paper, I focus on the following points. First, since local governments can enact ordinances on ‘their affairs’, it is questionable whether matters concerning living wages belong to the affairs of local governments. Second, local governments can enact ordinances within the scope of statutes, so it is disputable whether the enactment of living wage regulations by local governments violates the Minimum Wage Act. Third, local governments must have the authority delegated by Acts in order to enact ordinances on matters concerning the restriction of rights or imposition of duties on residents. Therefore, in order to enact ordinances on living wages, it is questionable whether the delegation by Act is required. Fourth, the living wage ordinance of Seongnam City stipulates that a portion of wages can be paid with a local gift card, which is disputable if it is in violation of Article 43 of the Labor Standards Act, which requires wages to be paid with currency.
-
-
이일세 한국공법학회 2011 공법연구 Vol.39 No.3
In the UK, tribunals are mainly a twentieth-century phenomenon, for it was long part of the conception of the rule of law that the determination of questions of law belonged to the courts exclusively. The growth of the welfare state led to the creation of the various tribunals. In the 1950s there was growing concern as to the range and diversity of tribunals, uncertainty as to the procedures they followed, and worry over the lack of cohesion and supervision. In 1955, as a result of the Crichel Down affair, the Franks Committee was set up and made its seminal report in 1957. The Franks Committee's central proposal was that there should be a permanent Council on Tribunals in order to provide some standing machinery for the general supervision of tribunal organization and procedure. And the Franks Report contained a series of valuable general recommendations concerning the constitution and procedure of tribunals. Many of the measures recommended by the Franks Committee were enacted in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958, replaced by the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. In 2001, for the first time since the Franks Report of 1957, a review of all tribunals was conducted. It was undertaken for the Lord Chancellor by a retired Court of Appeal judge, Sir Andrew Leggatt, assisted by an expert panel. Leggatt criticised the lack of system in tribunals, commenting that tribunals had grown up in haphazard way, created piecemeal by legislation. He proposed the creation of what would indeed be a system of administrative justice, “a single, overarching structure” that would give the individual improved access to all tribunals. Many of the Leggatt recommendations were incorporated in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act(TCE Act) 2007. The TCE Act created two new generic tribunals, the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, into which existing tribunal jurisdictions could be transferred. In general there is a right to appeal on “any point of law” from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal. From the Upper Tribunal there is a further appeal to the Court of Appeal on “any point of law.” The TCE Act established the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council to oversee the system of tribunals and inquiries, and abolished the Council on Tribunals, which previously performed the oversight role. Following the recommendations of the Leggatt Report, a Tribunals Service was created in 2006 as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice. 영국의 경우 법적 분쟁에 대한 심판권은 배타적으로 법원의 권한에 속한다는 것이 오랫동안 법의 지배(rule of law)의 중요한 내용의 하나로 인식되었기 때문에, 행정에 관한 법적 분쟁에 대하여 일반 법원으로부터 분리된 행정부 내의 기관이 심판하는 행정심판제도는 원칙적으로 받아들여지지 않았었다. 그러나 20세기에 들어서 사회입법이 증가함에 따라 개개 행정분야의 특수한 분쟁을 효율적으로 해결하기 위해 다양한 종류의 행정심판소가 설립되게 되었다. 1950년대에 와서 행정심판소간의 통일성 결여와 감독장치의 미흡에 대한 우려가 증가하게 됨에 따라 행정심판제도에 대한 재검토가 요청되었는바, 그 첫 번째 시도가 1957년의 Franks보고서와 그에 기초한 1958년의 “행정심판소 및 심문법”(Tribunals and Inquiries Act)에 의해 이루어졌다. 1957년 법은 행정심판소에 대한 일반적 감독기능을 담당하기 위해 행정심판소심의회(Council on Tribunals)를 설치하고 행정심판절차를 정비하는 등 나름의 노력을 하였으나, 난립되어 있는 행정심판소의 통합에는 관심을 기울이지 못하였다. 점차 행정심판소의 난립이 심각해지고 또한 행정심판소심의회가 제 기능을 발휘하지 못한다는 비판이 일자 다시금 행정심판제도 개혁의 필요성이 크게 부각되었고, 이에 2001년의 Leggatt보고서와 그에 기초한 2007년의 “행정심판소, 법원 및 강제집행법”(The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007)에 의하여 두 번째 변화가 이루어졌다. TCE법에 의해 종전의 행정심판제도는 획기적으로 변혁되었는바, 그 주된 내용은 다음과 같다. 종래 개별법에 의해 난립되었던 행정심판소를 일심행정심판소(First-tier Tribunal)라는 단일의 행정심판소로 통합하였고, 일심행정심판소의 재결에 대한 불복사건을 심리ㆍ재결하기 위하여 상급행정심판소(Upper Tribunal)를 설치하였다. 그리고 상급행정심판소의 재결에 대해서는 항소법원(appellate court)에 불복청구를 하도록 하였다. 관계 정부부처로부터 행정심판소의 독립성을 확보하기 위하여 행정심판소에 대한 행정적 지원을 하는 기관으로 법무부에 별도의 Tribunals Service라는 기관을 설치하였고, 또한 행정심판소의 조직과 활동에 대한 감독기관으로 종전의 행정심판소심의회(Council on Tribunals)를 대신하여 새로이 “행정정의 및 행정심판소심의회”(Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council)를 설치하였다. 그리고 대체적 분쟁해결방안의 하나로 조정(mediation)제도를 명문화함으로써, 재결 이전에 당사자간의 협상과 양보에 의한 분쟁해결이 가능하도록 하였다.
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
