사무지원 파견근로자의 파견법 위반사례 방지를 위한 법정책적 방안

이희성 ( Hee-soung Lee ),이세주 ( Se-joo Lee ) 한국법정책학회 2020 법과 정책연구 Vol.20 No.4

파견근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률(이하 “파견법”이라 한다)은 근로자파견대상 업무에 해당하지 아니하는 업무에 대해 파견근로자를 사용하는 경우 사용사업주로 하여금 해당 파견근로자를 직접 고용하도록 의무를 부과하고, 파견대상 업무에 해당하지 않는 업무에 대하여 근로자파견사업을 한 자와 그로부터 근로자파견의 역무(役務)를 제공받은 자 모두를 처벌하도록 벌칙규정을 두고 있다. 그런데 파견법은 어떤 업무가 근로자파견대상 업무인지를 파견법령에서 직접 규정하지 않고, 통계청에서 2000년도에 고시한 한국표준직업분류(통계청고시 제2000-2호)를 준용하는 방식을 취하고 있는바, 위 한국표준직업분류(통계청고시 제2000-2호)에는 서로 다른 분류번호 사이 중첩되는 영역이 있어 기업의 인사담당자 입장에서 어떤 업무가 근로자파견대상 업무인지를 정확히 알아내기가 어렵다는 문제가 있다. 한국표준직업분류(통계청고시 제2000-2호)상 ‘사무지원 종사자’의 업무에 종사하는 파견근로자는 근로자파견대상 업무에 종사하는 파견근로자 중 가장 그 수가 많은데, 파견대상 업무인 ‘사무지원 종사자’의 업무와 파견대상 업무가 아닌 ‘계수사무 종사자’의 업무 사이의 중첩적인 영역 문제로 기업에서 실제 파견법 위반으로 처벌된 사례가 있다. 그런데, ‘사무지원 종사자’의 업무와 ‘계수사무 종사자’의 업무 사이 존재하는 중첩적인 영역의 문제는 파견법이 최신 한국표준직업분류(통계청고시 제2017-191호)를 준용할 경우 어느 정도 해소가 된다. 최신 한국표준직업분류(통계청고시 제2017-191호)는 직업을 조금 더 세분화·구체화하여 분류하고, 서로 다른 분류번호 사이에 중첩되는 영역을 최소화하고자 노력하였기 때문에 2000년도의 한국표준직업분류(통계청고시 제2000-2호)를 준용할 때보다 어떤 업무가 근로자 파견대상 업무에 해당하는지 알아내기가 쉽게 되었다. 그리고 2000년도의 한국표준직업분류(통계청고시 제2000-2호) 보다 현재의 국내 노동시장 직업구조 특성을 더 잘 반영한다는 장점이 있다. 본고는 파견법령이 파견대상 업무와 관련하여 그 준용대상을 최신 한국표준직업분류(통계청고시 제2017-191호)로 변경하는 것을 사무지원 파견근로자의 업무범위 명확화 방안으로 제안한다. 또는 직접적으로 파견법(시행령) 자체에 어떤 업무가 근로자파견대상 업무에 해당하는지 좀 더 세분화·구체화하여 알아내기가 쉽게 개정·보완하는 방안도 제안한다. 그 밖에 추가적으로 보완해야 할 점이 무엇인지 살펴 현행 파견법이 사무지원 파견근로자의 업무범위를 보다 명확히 할 수 있도록 그 개선방안을 제시해보기로 한다. 이를 통해 파견법이 헌법상 ‘처벌법규의 명확성 원칙’을 충족하고, 실무에서도 파견대상 업무범위에 대해 명확한 판단을 내릴 수 있게 되어 결과적으로 파견법 위반 사례를 방지하는데 도움이 되기를 기대해본다. Act on The Protection, Etc. of Temporary Agency Workers(hereinafter dispatched worker act) is to impose obligation of directly hiring dispatched workers on user company if the user company uses temporary placement of workers for jobs that do not involve Jobs permitted for temporary placement of workers, and to punish both those who did workers dispatch business and those who were provided with service of the business. Nevertheless, this dispatched worker act does not regulate what jobs are permitted for temporary placement of workers directly, but takes the method of observing Korean standard classification of occupations(National Statistical Office No. 2000-2), which has overlapped areas between different classification numbers, so it is difficult for human resources officers to find out jobs permitted for temporary placement of workers exactly. Under the Korean standard classification of occupations(National Statistical Office No. 2000-2), the number of dispatched workers engaged in the work of "office support workers" is the largest among dispatched workers, and there are cases in which companies have been punished for violating the dispatched worker act due to overlapping areas between the work of "office support workers" and the work of "counting office workers" who are not dispatched. However, the problem of overlapping areas between the work of 'office support workers' and the work of 'counting office workers' is somewhat resolved when the dispatched worker act applies to the latest Korean standard classification of occupations(National Statistical Office No. 2017-191). The latest Korean standard classification of occupations(National Statistical Office No. 2017-191) fragments and specifies jobs further and tries to minimize the overlapped areas between different classification numbers. Therefore, it is easier to find jobs that are permitted for temporary placement of workers. In addition, the latest Korean standard classification of occupations(National Statistical Office No. 2017-191) reflects the characteristics of current domestic labor market's job structure better. Thus, this study suggests the dispatched worker act should observe the latest Korean standard classification of occupations(National Statistical Office No. 2017-191) instead of the one in 2000. In addition, this paper will propose a plan to revise or supplement the Dispatched Workers Act(Enforcement Decree of the Dispatched Workers Act) so as to make it easier to know what the tasks are subject to dispatch workers. And this paper proposes further improvement plans to clarify the scope of work of the office support dispatched workers. By doing this, the dispatched worker act can satisfy the 'Clarification rule of punishment laws' and can make definite judgement on jobs permitted for temporary placement of workers, so it is expected to reduce cases of violating the dispatched worker act.

비정규직법 시행령 등의 제ㆍ개정 관련 주요 쟁점과 입법방향

조임영(Jo Im-Young) 한국노동법학회 2007 노동법학 Vol.0 No.24

Recently the act relating to protection, ETC., for dispatched worker(‘dispatched work act') is enacted and the act relating to protection, ETC., for fixed-term worker and part-time worker(‘fixed-term employment act') is amended in Korea. According to the fixed-term employment act, the duration of employment of fixed-term worker is restricted within two years and if the employment of fixed-term worker excess two years, the worker deem to be employed by non fixed-term employment contract. The fixed-term employment act provide the cases to which the restriction of duration of employment of fixed-term worker are not applied. One of them is the case which need to use expertise or skills and the fixed-term employment act delegate the fix of scope corresponded to this case to Presidential Decree. In this case, an employer can conclude a fixed-term employment contract without limit. Dispatched work act before the amendment stipulated that “jobs to which Worker Dispatch System may apply shall include … the ones selected by the Presidential Decree, which require expertise, skills or experiences”. The amended Dispatched work act add character of job to expertise, skills or experiences, which may be followed to amend the list of jobs permitted to use dispatched work. These matters have a profound impact on the enforcement of these acts and the labor market. This article studies the basis and the limit of these matters which are provided by Presidential Decree. This article notes that the purpose of the fixed-term employment act and the dispatched work act is the prevention of an employment instability, therefore the above mentioned matters is strictly restricted within cases which are not the problem of a precarious employment.

派遣労働者の雇用実態と課題の韓日比較 -派遣業務と派遣期間を中心に-

裵 海 善 한일경상학회 2017 韓日經商論集 Vol.74 No.-

This paper focused on job categories and dispatching periods for dispatched workers under the Worker Dispatch Act, in Korea and Japan. Specifically, we examine employment instability for dispatched workers, as the result of the relaxation of regulation, on job categories and work period. This paper provides the following major findings: In Korea, the Worker Dispatch Act was enforced in 1998 and job categories and the period of dispatch have been strongly regulated, since the law was enforced, for the purpose of the legal protection of workers. Under the Act, job categories are limited to 32 jobs, dispatch to manufacturing industries is prohibited and the use of dispatched workers by client companies, is limited to within two years. As a result of this high regulation, the rate of dispatch workers is very low with the rate of non-regular workers, currently standing at 3.1 percent. However, the companies (especially those in the manufacturing industry) have been increasing outsourcing contracts to reduce labor costs and a considerable number of contract workers who are working in manufacturing companies, are considered “disguised dispatched workers”, and are employed by illegal means so as to avert the application of the Worker Dispatch Act. In Japan, the Worker Dispatch Act has been revised many times, since the law was originally adopted in 1985, to eliminate the restrictions on the job categories and the period of dispatch for workers. Under the 1999 revision, the regulations on job categories were eliminated, subject to a one year limitation on the period of dispatch. Subsequently, under the 2003 revision, the regulations on dispatching workers to manufacturing companies were eliminated. However, under the 2015 revision, the restrictions on dispatching period were eliminated, the client company can continue to use a dispatched worker for the same job, if that workers is replaced with another, once every three years, subject to consultation with a majority Labor Union. With this deregulation of law, dispatched workers will increase in the future. The problems are, that the employment of dispatched workers is very unstable because they can be a target of employment adjustment by client companies while the business cycle is declining and that their wage is about half that of regular workers in Korea and Japan. Equal treatment, the so-called Equal Pay for Equal Work, and employment stability for dispatched workers, are necessary measures that must be taken in both countries. 본 논문은 한국과 일본의 근로자파견법의 최대 초점이 되고 있는 파견업종과 파견기간에 주목하여, 파견법 개정의 흐름과 규제완화 내용을 비교하고, 파견근로자의 고용불안 실태와 앞으로의 과제를 확인하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 한국에서는 1998년 파견법을 제정한 이래, 파견근로자 보호를 목적으로 파견업종을 32업종으로 제한하고, 제조업 파견을 금지하며, 동일사업소에서의 파견기간이 2년을 초과하면 직접고용을 의무화하는 등 파견업종과 파견기간에 대한 규제가 강하다. 그 결과 파견근로자는 비정규직 고용의 3.1%에 불과하나, 파견법 적용을 회피하기 위한 수단으로 사내 하도급근로자가 증가하고 있고, 이와 함께 제조업의 위장도급이 큰 문제가 되고 있다. 일본의 경우 1985년 파견법을 제정한 이래, 파견업종과 파견기간의 규제완화를 위한 법 개정을 계속해 왔다. 1999년 파견기간을 1년(2003년부터 3년)으로 제한하는 조건으로 파견업종을 완전 자유화하고, 2003년에는 제조업 파견을 해금하였다. 또한 2015년 법 개정으로 파견기간과 직접고용의무를 사실상 폐지하고, 기업은 파견근로자를 3년마다 대체하면 동일한 업무를 계속해서 파견근로자에게 맡길 수 있게 되었다. 파견노동의 규제완화는 노동시장의 유연화를 통해 기업의 경쟁력을 높이고, 위장도급근로자를 파견법으로 보호할 수 있으며, 특히 일과 가정의 양립을 도모하는 여성과 고령자의 고용을 창출하는 효과도 있다. 문제는 파견근로자는 기업의 고용조정의 대상이 되기 쉽고, 고용불안과 저임금으로 인해 빈곤화가 지속될 수 있다는 점이다. 규제완화와 함께 파견근로자의 고용안정, 동일노동 동일임금 등 파견근로자의 처우를 개선하기 위한 구체적인 정책제안이 한일 모두에게 중요한 과제이다.

중국의 근로자파견에 관한 법적연구

윤진기 한중법학회 2010 中國法硏究 Vol.13 No.-

This paper aims at studying the legal aspects of the labor dispatch in China. The labor dispatch in China was ruled by the Labor Contract Law which was enacted by China"fs National People"fs Congress on June 29, 2007, and took effect on January 1, 2008, and ruled by Implementing Regulations for the Labor Contract Law which were adopted by China"fs State Council on September 3, 2008 and took effect on September 18, 2008. Under the Labor Contract Law, the dispatched workers shall enjoy the right to obtain the same pay as that received by workers of the accepting entity for the equal work. And during periods when there is no work for the workers, relevant remunerations shall be paid to such workers by the labor dispatch service provider on a monthly basis at the minimum salary as prescribed by the people"fs government of the region where the labor dispatch service provider is situated. Some obligations shall be performed by an accepting entity, for example the obligations such as carrying out labor standards of the state and providing relevant working conditions and labor protection; informing the dispatched workers of job requirements and labor remuneration; paying overtime remunerations and performance bonuses and providing benefits relevant to the post; providing the dispatched workers who assume the posts with corresponding training as required; and adopting a normal salary adjustment system in the case of continuous placement. In case any labor dispatch service provider is in violation of this Law, the labor administrative department and other relevant competent authorities shall order it to make a correction. In the case of any severe circumstances, it shall be imposed a fine and its business license shall be revoked. If any damage occurs to the dispatched workers, the labor dispatch service provider and the accepting entity shall be jointly liable for compensation. The enactment of the Labor Contract Law made a big improvement in the Chinese the labor dispatch system, but there are still some problems in the labor dispatch law and practices in China. First Though labor dispatch service providers shall be established as prescribed by the Company Law and have registered capital of no less than 500,000 yuan, there is still the lack of review and permit system for other requirement such as personal quality in labor dispatch service providers. Second Although the Labor Contract Law provide that the dispatched workers shall assume the temporary, assistant or substitute posts in general, there is no clear guideline of the scope of business field and post where the dispatched workers can work, for the labor dispatch service provider and the accepting entity. Third There is no maximum limits of labor contract period. The labor contract between the labor dispatch service provider and the dispatched workers shall be a labor contract with a fixed term of more than two years. This kind long-term labor contract will result in permanent dispatched workers, and deprive the dispatched workers of the chance for them to be a regular worker. Fourth The dispatched workers are entitled to join the labor union or to organize such unions in the labor dispatch service provider or in the accepting entity according to law, in order to safeguard their lawful rights and interests. But the scope of collective bargaining is still not clear.

현장 취재 논문 : 2015 농축산업 이주노동자 근로환경 관련 법제 연구

권민지 ( Minji Kwon ),김덕현 ( Deokhyun Kim ),김연각 ( Youngak Kim ),김현중 ( Hyunjoong Kim ),유현정 ( Hyunjung Yu ),장한결 ( Hankyeol Jang ) 서울대학교 BK21 법학연구단 공익인권법연구센터 2015 공익과 인권 Vol.15 No.-

고용허가제 하의 농축산업 이주노동자들은 한국 농축산업의 구조적 한계로 인해 이중의 차별을 겪고 있다. 2013년 국가인권위원회와 2014년 국제앰네스티의 문제 제기로 농축산업 이주노동자들이 겪는 문제에 대한 관심이 높아졌다. 이에 2015년 현재, 이해관계자(이주노동자, 고용주, 고용센터)들과의 인터뷰를 통해 기존의 문제점이 어떠한 방식으로 개선되었는지, 그럼에도 불구하고 상존하는 문제점은 무엇인지를 도출하였다. 우선 과도한 노동과 저임금 문제가 있다. 근로기준법 제63조는 농축산업 근로자에 대해 근로시간, 휴게와 휴일에 관한 규정 적용을 제외하고, 제11조는 상시고용자 4인 이하 업장을 적용에서 제외하기 때문이다. 과거 입법된 제63조는 현재 변화된 농축산업의 근로양태를 반영하지 못하고있다. 설령, 농축산업의 특수성을 인정한다 하더라도, 현행법이 근로시간과 휴식에 대해 어떠한 기준도 설정하지 않은 것은 정당화될 수 없다. 대안으로 제63조에 대한 폐지론, 유지론, 개정론이있다. 폐지할 경우 제11조에 의해 적용제외 대상이 되지 않도록 검토해야 하고, 유지할 경우에도 근로계약에 근로조건을 명시하고 추가노동시간에 대한 대가를 보장해야 한다. 개정론으로 적용제외대상을 축소하거나 실태조사를 통해 근로시간 및 휴게시간을 구체적으로 산정하여 법정화 할수도 있다. 고용허가제의 사업장 변경 제한 규정으로 인해 발생하는 문제도 있다. 현행 법률은 사업장 변경 기회를 제한하고 있고 근로계약서상 정해진 장소에서만 근로해야 하지만, 농촌에서는 노동력 단기 불법파견이 자행되고 있으며 심지어 인신매매적 성격을 지니기에 이른다. 그러나 계절적 노동수요 변화에 따른 부담과 인력 유출의 우려로 이해관계자는 이를 묵인하고 있다. 고용허가제의 경직성을 보완하기 위해 ‘농업 분야 근무처 추가제도’가 시행되고 있지만 이용률이 낮다. 근본적으로 고용허가제 자체에서 사업장 변경기회를 제한하는 정책을 재고하여 사업장 변경의 유연화가 이루어져야 한다. 경제적 관점에서 볼 때 현행 제도는 이해관계자 누구에게도 그 효용이 떨어지기 때문이다. 또한, 근무처 추가제도는 유지하고 적극 홍보하여 계절에 따른 수요 변동은 충족시키되, 단기간 파견근로를 지방자치단체가 관리하는 형태로 제한적으로 양성화해야 한다. 이주노동자의 주거에 있어서는 기숙사 환경과 기숙사 비용의 문제가 있다. 특히 2013년 이후 시간외 근로수당을 인정하는 경우는 늘었으나 이를 기숙사 비용으로 상계하는 경우가 있었다. 불법 상계를 막기 위해 단속을 강화할 것이 요청된다. 또한 기숙사 환경 보장을 위해 표준근로계약서의 내용을 세분화하여야 한다. 환경 개선을 위해 우수기숙사제도가 도입되었으나 사용자 입장에서는 개선을 위한 비용에 비해 제도 운용의 효용이 적었다. 구체적인 기준을 법령으로 명문화하는 것이 필요하고, 비용을 정부에서 적극적으로 지원해야 한다. 이주노동자의 건강과 안전 문제와 관련하여, 산업재해보험의 경우 4인 이하 적용제외 규정에 의한 고용주의 비용부담 회피가 지적된 바 있다. 농림축산식품부가 기획한 별도 보험으로 운용되는 현행 법제를 산업재해보험으로 일원화하고 고용주를 지원하는 방식의 개선이 필요하다. 건강보험의 경우에는 법제상으로는 이주노동자의 가입이 허용되어 있었지만 실제 운용에서는 농축산업 이주노동자가 배제되는 경우가 많았다. 이에 고용허가제 하에서 건강보험가입을 강행규정화하고 단속을 강화할 것이 요청된다. Migrant workers in South Korean agricultural and stockbreeding industry face double discrimination under Employment Permit System(EPS), and under low-developed agricultural industry. National Human Rights Commission in 2013 and Amnesty International in 2014 raised the issue and a series of improvement were followed. In 2015, through interviews with the parties interested - migrant workers, employers, public officials working at Employment Information Service - this research reveals additional problems as follows : 1. Migrant workers get overworked and underpaid because of Article 63 of Labor Standard Act(LSA), which makes them exceptions from regulations on working hours, recess and off-days. The article does not regulate the current agricultural industry well enough. Even if agricultural industry requires special regulation, distinct characteristics of agriculture should be considered, and there is no possible justification for the non-existence of the regulations for working hours and off days for agricultural workers. 2. Temporary dispatch, which is illegal, still remains. According to EPS, changing workplace is limitedly permitted and migrant workers are allowed to work only in the place written in the contract. However employers dispatch migrant workers during off-season and share the workforce with nearby farms. To solve the issue, “Workplace Addition System” was introduced, which turns out to be not much used. 3. Housing was in poor condition and employers shift expenses to migrant workers. Employers illegally set off overtime allowances with dormitory fee. The government gives incentives to the farms equipped with good dormitories. However they were not attractive enough for employers to pay for the improvement. 4. Migrant workers were practically excluded from social insurance system. Nominally, Industrial Safety and Health Act are to apply equally to migrant workers and native Koreans. However, due to exclusion clause of the Act for workplaces under 5 employees, migrant workers in small farms could not be protected by the law. Also, the percentage of the workers with health insurance was relatively low because of the lack of enforcement. The research concludes with suggestions to current regulation and urges the government to provide additional support and proper supervision.

현행 ‘근로자파견 판단기준 지침’의 개선방안 연구

이재현 노동법이론실무학회 2022 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.37

Even after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Temporary Agency Workers (hereafter “Temporary Agency Workers Act”) and the revision of the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s relevant guidelines, disputes surrounding the illegal dispatch of workers have not decreased significantly, indicating the need for improving the guidelines for determining the legality of dispatch of workers. To this end, changes made in the guidelines for determining what illegal dispatch is and the criteria currently in use were reviewed, and the shortcomings and ways to improve the current practice were examined. Above all, when determining whether a particular employment constitutes illegal dispatch of workers, one needs to consider the peculiarity of each industry and type of work involved in the contract for work at issue, which has not received enough consideration. In the case of the automobile industry, due to the complicated nature of transactions between companies which are often multi-layered and multifaceted, applying the current, relatively uniform criteria to determine the legality of workers’ dispatch has been likely to bring about unreasonable results. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the characteristics of each industry and type of business involved in the contract for work being reviewed when establishing and applying the criteria to determine illegal dispatch of workers. In addition, when applying the guidelines, measures to enable differential application of specific criteria depending on the characteristics or nature of each contract for work need to be devised. While the initial discussion about illegal dispatch of workers was focused on uniformly applying the legal standards without distinguishing industries from one another (Stage 1), the recent discussion revolves around raising the awareness about differential application of the criteria by industry or type of work (Stage 2). Furthermore, in the case of industries, where separate processes are closely intricated, each contract for work’s characteristics or the nature of contract directives need to be considered (Stage 3). Through these stages, legal disputes revolving around illegal dispatch of workers are more likely to be resolved, and the guidelines for determining unlawful dispatch of temporary agency workers are expected to function properly as a preventive measure. 이상으로 불법파견 판단지침의 변화와 현재의 기준을 살펴보고, 문제점과 개선방안을 제시하였다. 오늘날 기업 간 도급계약을 베이스로 한 외부인력 활용에 대하여 고전적인 도급계약과 근로계약의 전형적 요소들을 형식적으로 접목하여 어느 하나에 포섭하려는 시도는 현실과 괴리된 판단 가능성이 있고, 이것이 분쟁당사자에게 법적 불안 정성을 초래할 위험이 있다는 지적97)을 경청할 필요가 있다. 새롭게변화된 산업환경의 변화에 맞춰 도급계약의 범위와 내용, 한계를 새롭게 법으로 규정하여 법적 분쟁과 혼란을 원천적으로 차단하는 것이바람직하다. 다만, 이러한 중·장기 입법 개선에 앞서 현재 사용 중인불법파견 판단지침의 개선이 선행될 필요가 있다. 자동차 산업의 경우, 중층적·다면적으로 이루어지는 복잡한 기업 간거래 특성이 나타나고 도급계약의 구성과 형태도 다양하므로 일률적인기준을 적용하여 불법파견 여부를 판단하면 불합리한 결과를 초래할개연성이 높다. 따라서 불법파견 판단기준에서 도급계약의 산업·업종별특성이 고려될 필요가 있고, 구체적인 판단지침의 적용과정에서 도급계약의 특성·속성 등에 따라서 세부 판단기준을 차등적으로 적용하는 방안 마련이 필요하다. 이는 자동차 산업 외에도 유사한 제조업 또는 비제조업 산업 등에서 분화된 도급업무 공정에 적용할 수 있다. 정리하면, 초창기의 불법 파견에 관한 논의가 산업을 구분하지 않은 채 법리적 기준을 일괄적으로 적용했다면(1단계), 최근의 논의는산업·업종별 구분 적용에 관한 인식이 형성되는 과정 중에 있으며(2단계), 여기서 더 나아가 독립된 개별 공정이 복잡하게 연결된 산업의경우, 도급계약의 특성 및 도급지시권의 속성 규명과 관련하여 이러한 특징이 반영(3단계)될 필요가 있다. 이를 통하여 불법파견과 관련된 법적 분쟁이 해소되고, 불법파견 판단지침이 예방기준으로 적정하게 작동하기를 기대해 본다

해외근무자에 대한 산업재해보상보험법의 적용과 한계

강선희 노동법이론실무학회 2015 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.15

On the ground of principle of territoriality, Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act applies to business or workplace which are conducted in the area of Korea’s territorial sovereignty. According to this principle, dispatched workers, who are sent to achieve overseas business by an employer doing business in Korea, can be in a dead zone of Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act on occupational accidents since it doesn’t apply to them. In order to solve this problem, the Special Cases concerning Persons Dispatched Overseas for the dispatched workers (the article 121·122) are enacted. The article 121 (1) of the Act stipulates that “With respect to any business in a country or area as prescribed by a treaty or convention governing social security to which Korea is a party, for the purposes of compensating a worker for any occupational accident that occurs during his/her overseas service period, a person designated by the Minister of Employment and Labor after consultation with the Financial Services Commission is allowed to carry on, on its own account, insurance business as prescribed by this Act.” Furthermore, The article 122 (1) of the Act stipulates that “Where any policyholder under Article 5 (3) and (4) of the Insurance Premium Collection Act applies for an insurance policy to the Service and obtains approval therefrom for a person dispatched overseas to place him/her in a business run by the said policyholder in an area (excluding any area prescribed by ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor) other than the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as ‘person dispatched overseas’), the person dispatched overseas may be deemed a worker employed for a business (where two or more businesses exist, this refers to the main business) carried on within the territory of the Republic of Korea and thus be governed by this Act.” This article examines the Special Cases concerning Overseas Business or Persons Dispatched Overseas and suggests the limits and improvement measures of current laws.

도급과 파견의 구별에 관한 최근 판결의 동향과 쟁점

이달휴(Lee, Dahl Hugh) 한국비교노동법학회 2017 노동법논총 Vol.40 No.-

The court of this case denied the labor of subcontract and acknowledged the illegal dispatched labor to the indirect processes in the motor industry. irrespective of the use of word: subcontract. If there is the order or direction of user-employer to the workers, the labor belongs to the dispatched labor from viewpoint of employee dispatching or the Protection of Dispatched-Employee Act(hereafter the ‘PDEA’). So, user-employer has the duty to hire the dispatched workers. If user-employer doesn’t hire them, they have the right to ask for the verdict in substitution for the user-employer expression of will. So that verdict is found in the court, an employment relation between user-employer and dispatched workers is established. Two problems is proposed on this case: First, for it is difficult to distinguish the order or direction of user-employer’s from that of the contractor, the problem with contract for dispatched labor or contract for any construction work. If the company that dispatchs the workers independently exists and user-employer don’t directly order the workers but contractor. the legal relation between user-employer and workers is that of subcontract. That is to avoid the judgement based on the element of dependent labor relation. Second, PDEA has the clause that user-employer should directly hire the dispatched workers in case of illegal dispatched labor. the court made an interpretation of this clause as concluding employment contract. I don’t agree court’s understanding of this clause. This clause is the meaning that user-employer has just obligation to hire the dispatched worker, because the administrative fine for negligence is imposed on him in case of the user- employer’s violation of the clause.

근로자파견성’ 판단 기준 재정립의 모색 - 판례에 대한 분석을 중심으로

박귀천 노동법이론실무학회 2019 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.27

In the case of judging the concept of dispatch of workers where illegal dispatch is problematic, it should start from the point of view of judging the concept of dispatch of workers based on the over all relevant laws, including the Act on the protection, etc. of temporary agency workers. The principle of restricting indirect employment can be confirmed in many current laws such as Employmet Security Act, Labor Standards Act or the Act on the protection, etc. of temporary agency workers. Since the Supreme Court's decisions about criteria for dispatching and contracting in February 26, 2015, the courts are on the principle of substantive judgment, which is reasonable. In cases where the relationship between the contractor and several subcontractors is problematic, even if there is no formal contractual relationship between the contractor and the specific subcontractor, the principle of substantive judgment must be applied. The courts does not classify the essential and incidental standards in judging the concept of dispatching workers. The essential criteria should be to judge whether the conduct of the direction, such as exercising against the employee directly hired by the employer, exists between the contractor and the subcontract workers. Therefore, the supervision and direction of the contractor in the course of the work of the subcontract workers and the integration of the subcontract workers into the organization of the contractor should be reviewed as the essential standards. If supervision and direction of the contractor is recognized, integration of the subcontract workers into the organization of the contractor must also be recognized. The concept of dispatch a worker should not be denied because of ancillary criteria. 불법파견 여부가 문제되는 사안에서 근로자파견의 개념을 판단하고자 하는 경우, 근로자파견법을 비롯한 관련 법 전반의 취지에 입각한 근로자파견성 판단이라는 관점에서 출발해야 한다. 직업안정법, 근로기준법, 근로자파견법 등 여러 현행법에서는 간접고용을 제한하는 원칙을 확인할 수 있다. 2015. 2. 26. 대법원 판결들에서 파견과 도급의 판단 기준이 제시된 이후 법원은 실질적 판단을 원칙으로 하고 있고 이는 타당하다. 원청업체와 하나의 하청업체 간의 관계가 문제되는 경우 뿐 만 아니라 원청업체와 여러 개의 하청업체들 간의 관계가 문제되는 경우에도 원청업체와 특정 하청업체 간에 형식적인 계약관계가 존재하지 않는다 하더라도 실질적 판단 원칙이 적용되어야 한다. 한편 법원은 근로자파견 개념을 판단함에 있어서는 본질적 기준과 부수적 기준을 나누지 않고 있다. 본질적 기준은 사용자가 직접 고용한 근로자에 대해 행사하는 것과 같은 지휘명령의 모습이 원청회사와 하청근로자 간에 존재하는가에 대해 판단하는 것이어야 한다. 따라서 하청근로자의 업무수행 과정에서의 원청의 지휘·감독 및 하청근로자의 사업장에의 편입을 본질적 기준으로 검토하여야 하고, 원청의 지휘‧감독이 인정되는 경우에는 사업장에의 편입 역시 인정되는 것으로 해석되어야 한다. 그 밖의 부수적 기준에 의해서는 근로자파견의 성립이 부정되지 않도록 해야 한다.

산업안전보건법상 사내하도급에 관한 사업주 책임

노상헌(Roh Sang Heon) 한국비교노동법학회 2012 노동법논총 Vol.25 No.-

The number of workers under the commonly called indirect employment has steadily increased from 1997 in Korea. This is resulted from the hard pressure to cut down the labor costs on the severe struggle for existence of global market in these days. As the result, using employers and sending employers take more profits but, dispatched workers are imposed sacrifice and the risk of industrial safety and health are transferred to the workers in this process. This essay discussed about the indriect employment by investigating two acts. One is the regulations about the obligations of employer about the safety and care on the Occupational Safety and Health Act(OSHA), and the other is Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers(APDW). The worker dispatch contract means an agreement prescribing worker dispatch between a sending employer and a using employer. If workers working dependently in the using employ’s workplace under the instruction, the responsibility of the employer is shared between contractor or using employer and subcontractor or sending employer about the safety and health by the OSHA, APDW and the contract law. Nowadays, jobs suitable for worker dispatch are widely increased in the service industry. So the regulation about the responsibility and obligation of security of using employer and contractor should be changed from the negative rule to the positive rule for protecting the labor’s right under the Constitution Law. The legal basis of these responsibility is derived from ’special contact on the triangle relation of in-house indirect employment by the article 29 of OSHA and the precedent of the Supreme Court. And there are two unsettled problems related with the this area. The one is some core articles of OSHA are not a mandatory provision, The other is shared responsibility of contractor in OSHA covers only 8 industrial section.