사용자책임의 비교법적 경향

김봉수 ( Bong Su Kim ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2009 고려법학 Vol.0 No.54

All legal systems provide the tort liability which affects on the damage the employer causes to the auxiliary. They have more strict liability no matter the legal nature of employer`s liability is liability with fault or liability without fault, personal liability or vicarious liability. The meaning of employment between employer and employee in the sense of employment liability is extensive. So there is an agreement of comparative law that the employer`s liability occurs between employee, domestic helper, occasional helper and gratuitous helper. The main key for employment relationship is the relation of subordination. And when the employee does wrongdoing within the scope of employment, the employer is responsible for it. But the judgment within the scope of employment is very delicate issue, and each judgment is concluded by different legal systems. Still, the decision of relationship with work is not limited to the issues that directly related with work, regardless of the different standard of different country. In some legal system, they have the possibility for exemption from responsibility, Germany, Switzerland, Korea, but it`s still rare that the exemption is authorized. The presence of employer`s liability does not exempt the personal tort liability. So if the employer pays for the damages, he can normally use the indemnification or recourse. But the employer is also responsible for the damages which are caused from his employee, so the right to indemnify is restricted by the law in every legal system. The standard for restriction of the right to indemnify is different by each legal system, but it`s normally judged by the amount of fault caused by employee. Those comparative studies above can provide the point of view of analysis and interpretation on employer`s liability.

사용자책임의 입법론적 쟁점

김천수 梨花女子大學校 法學硏究所 2010 法學論集 Vol.14 No.4

이 논문은 사용자책임에 관한 민법 제756조에 대한 입법론을 전개한 것이다. 주장의 요지는 우선 사용자책임의 이원화이다. 즉 지금까지 모든 사용관계에 대하여 적용되어온 제756조의 규정을 사용자책임의 일반규정으로 하고, 기업의 사용자책임에 관하여는 별도의 규정을 두자는 것이다. 그래서 통상의 사용자책임은 과실책임의 관점에서 접근하여 현행대로 사용자의 면책사유를 인정하고 그 사용관계의 인정기준을 현재의 선임감독론에서 찾되 실제적 선임감독이 아니라 객관적·규범적 가능성으로 이를 인정하자는 것이다. 그 책임의 성립에는 피용자의 유책성을 요구하며 배상한 경우에 구상권의 제한도 허용됨이 바람직하다. 한편 기업의 사용관계는 조직편입론에 입각하여 인정하되 이러한 사용관계의 책임이 인정되는 기업은 손실의 사회적 분산이라는 기능을 가지고 있는 경우라야 할 것이다. 기업의 사용자책임에는 위험책임의 관점에서 접근하여 피용자의 유책성을 불문하며 면책사유를 배제하고 이러한 책임을 진 기업과 피용자의 법률관계는 조직 내부의 문제로 두고 그 구상권은 배제 내지 제한함이 바람직하다. The Section 756 of Korean Civil Code regulating the vicarious liability for auxiliaries are analysed in the view point of its legislative concern in this paper. It is suggested that the regulation of the liability referred to above should be differentiated between a general relation of employment and an enterprise relation. The important details of the suggestion offered in this paper are as the followings. The vicarious liability in the general relation of employment should be based upon the fault liability including negligence liability and intentional liability, but the enterprise liability should be included into the scope of strict liability. The general relation of employment should be recognised by employer's objective and normative possibility of designation and supervision or control of his or her employees; the enterprise relation by his or her incorporation of them in its organization. The Section 756 should be revised and applied only for the general relation of employment; a new section should be legislated for the enterprise liability. The Section 756 should be revised to require explicitly the negligence of the employees for the general vicarious liability for auxiliaries; the employer's defense of no fault in his or her designation and supervision or control of his or her employees should be allowed; the employer's claim for their reimbursement in the general relation of employment may be properly confined because the liability in such a relation is based upon the fault of the employer. In the new section for the enterprise liability, the negligence of the employees may not be required for the employer's liability; the employer's defense referred to above may not be allowed; the employer's claim for reimbursement of his or her employees should be excluded or strictly limited.

수급인의 불법행위로 인한 도급인의 책임

이은희(Lee Eun-Hee) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2009 法學硏究 Vol.20 No.1

The basic rule is that an employer is not liable for the torts of his independent contractors but there are a number of exceptions to this general rule. None of these exceptions, however, is a form of vicarious liability, for one of them is strict liability and in the others of them it is the breach of a duty owed to the claimant by the employer that gives rise to liability. At this point it is important to distinguish between cases in which the employer has been personally at fault, and cases where he has not been at fault, but by the contractor's act a primary duty owed by the employer to the claimant has been broken. Where the employer is at fault liability cannot be said to be strict. If, for example, the contractor has been employed to do something unlawful, such as digging up the street without statutory authority the employer will be liable for damage resulting from the contractor's negligence. The employer is taken to have authorised or ratified the tort. Similarly, the employer is liable on the basis of his personal fault if he has himself been negligent in selecting an incompetent contractor, or in employing an inadequate number of men for the job, or has interfered with the manner in which the work was performed in such a way that damage is caused. If the employer discovers that the contractor's work is being done in defective and foreseeably dangerous way, he may be liable if he condones the contractor's negligence. This is another instance of personal fault by the employer. Where a statute imposes an 'absolute' duty on an employer, responsibility for its performance cannot be delegated to a contractor. If care is not taken by the contractor, the employer's duty is broken. The employer is liable in addition to the contractor and would normally be entitled to an indemnity, so the practical effect of imposing liability on the employer is to make him a 'guarantor' of the contractor's solvency.

직장 내 성희롱으로 인한 사업주의 불법행위책임 여부 - 대법원 2017. 12. 22. 선고 2016다202947 판결을 중심으로 -

고철웅 한국민사법학회 2018 民事法學 Vol.85 No.-

The Korean Supreme Court decision on Dec. 22. 2017 (2016da202947) is significant in that it is the first ruling to propose legal principles concerning the employer’s liability for his adverse act against the third party. This article analyzes the decision of a subject with two main themes. First, it has to be examined whether unfair disciplinary action or disadvantage against fellow worker who assisted victims violates the duty of protecting his injured workers. The court found that the above act was not unreasonable from the various evidences and the original court ruled that the above act was not subject to unfair measures under the Equal Employment Act. On the other hand, the Supreme Court affirmed the employer's respect for the employees and the obligation to protect his employees and stated that it would violate the duty of the employer’s protection “unless there were special circumstances”. Also the Supreme Court found the employer’s obligation to protect workers was considered to include not only for the victim's actions but also for the third party. It should be examined how such a duty of protection could be applied to the discussion of precedents jurisprudence and doctrines. In Japan, the initial jurisprudence constituted a jurisdiction as a duty similar to the precautionary jurisdiction of safety, but later established a jurisprudence on the obligation to care for the workplace. Afterwards, the obligation to care for the work environment was upgraded to the obligation of care from the obligation of consideration in the legislation by amendment of the equal employment opportunities for men and women. The court ruled that it is necessary to consider not only for the victim but also for the surrounding people of the victim after the occurrence of the sexual harassment of the employer. Second, it should be considered whether the employer has taken unfavorable measures against the fellow worker who helped the injured workers in close proximity so that it violates the Civil Code Article 750 or not. In the past, the responsibility of the employer in the precedent case was generally recognized as the employers’ vicarious liability of the Civil Code Article 756. In case of sexual harassment, since the 2000s, case law has widely recognized the employers’ vicarious liability under Article 756 of the Civil Code. It seems that the remand court adopted this legal structure. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not the employers’ vicarious liability in Article 756 of the Civil Code but the liability of the employer for the illegal acts under the general liability of Article 750 of the Civil Code. It is based on the Civil Code articles 750, 752, 763 and 393. In addition, as a criterion for third party limitation, the object judgment refers to “close relationship” or “intimacy with contents of social or legal relationship”. The criteria for delimiting the range are meaningful, but it seems that there is unclear point as a standard. In the past, there has not been much discussion about the relationship between the responsibility of the employer in Article 750 of the Civil Code and the responsibility of the user in Article 756 of the Civil Code caused by certain acts of the employer. The object judgment has a theoretical meaning as a judgment with important judgment in this regard. 대상판결은 제3자에 대한 불리한 조치로 인한 사업주의 불법행위책임의 성립여부에 대한 법리를 처음으로 제시한 사안으로서 의의가 있다. 본 평석은 아래의 두 가지에 관해 대상판결을 분석한다. 첫째, 피해근로자 등을 도와준 동료 근로자에 대한 부당한 징계처분이나 불이익 조치가 사업주의 피해근로자 등에 대한 보호의무를 위반한 것인지에 관해서 본다. 1심은 각종 증거로부터 위 행위가 부당하지 않다고 보았으며, 원심은 위 행위가 남녀고용평등법상 불리한 조치의 대상이 될 수 없다고 하였다. 반면 대상판결은 사업주의 근로자에 대한 인격존중 및 보호의무를 긍정하며, “특별한 사정이 없는 한” 사업주의 보호의무위반이 된다고 판시하였다. 사업주의 근로자에 대한 보호의무는 사업주가 피해자 본인에게 가한 행위 뿐 아니라 제3자에게 가한 행위까지 미친다고 보았는데, 이와 같은 보호의무가 종래 판례, 학설의 논의와 어떻게 접목될 수 있는지에 대해서 검토하였다. 일본에서는 초기 판례는 보호의무를 선행법리인 안전배려의무와 유사한 것으로서 법리구성하였지만, 나중에는 직장환경배려의무에 관한 법리를 독자적으로 구축하였다. 그 뒤 직장환경배려의무는 남녀고용기회균등법 개정에 의해 입법상에서 배려의무에서 조치의무로 격상되었고, 판례는 사전조치 뿐 아니라 사후조치까지 배려해야 한다는 법리로 발전시켰다. 대상판결은 사업주의 성희롱 사건 발생 후 사후조치 관련해서도 피해자 뿐 아니라 피해자의 주변인에게까지도 일정한 배려를 해야 한다는 점을 판시한 것으로 중요한 의미를 가진다. 둘째, 사업주가 피해근로자 등을 가까이에서 도와준 동료 근로자에게 불리한 조치를 한 것이 민법 제750조의 일반불법행위책임이 성립한다는 판시에 대해서 검토한다. 종래에는 판례상 사업주의 책임은 사무집행 관련성을 넓게 인정하여 민법 제756조의 사용자책임으로서 법리구성해 왔던 것이 일반적이었다. 성희롱의 경우도 판례에서 2000년대 이후 민법 제756조의 사용자책임을 넓게 인정해 왔다. 대상 판결의 환송심도 이러한 법리구성을 채택한 것으로 보인다. 그러나 대상판결은 민법 제756조의 사용자책임이 아니라, 민법 제750조의 일반불법행위책임에 의해서 사업주의 불법행위책임을 인정하였다. 그 근거로 민법 제750조, 제752조, 제763조와 제393조를 들고 있다. 또한 제3자 한정을 위한 기준으로 대상판결은 “밀접한 관계” 내지 “사회적 또는 법률적 관계의 내용과 친밀성”을 거론한다. 범위획정 기준을 제시하였다는 점에서 의미가 있으나 기준으로서 불명확한 점도 없지 않다고 생각된다. 종래에는 사업주의 일정한 행위로 인한 민법 제750조의 사업주의 책임과 민법 제756조의 사용자책임이 어떤 관계를 가지는지 많은 논의가 있었던 것은 아니다. 대상판결은 이와 관련하여 중요한 판시를 한 판결로서 이론적 의미를 지닌다고 할 수 있다.

金融機關의 使用者責任에 관한 硏究

李泰喆(Lee Tae-Chiol) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2008 東亞法學 Vol.- No.42

A person (hereinafter “Employer”) who hires other individual (hereinafter “Employee”) to engage in certain business is liable to indemnify a third party for any damage the Employee causes to the third party in association with the business (Paragraph 1, Article 756, Civil Act), which is called as “Employer’s Liability”. It may be said that the practical justification of employers’ liability is to protect victims. Employer’s liability is characterized by the liabilities for a tort by other individual and without the employer’s direct negligence. Employer’s liability has the significance as it serves as the basis of corporate liabilities. Companies employ many employees in order to conduct its corporate activities. It is fair that a company should indemnify a third party for the damage any employee caused to the third party in the course of such activities. Furthermore, it is advantageous to the victim in receiving damages to relate to the company rather than to related to an employee who does not have sufficient funds. It is the opinions of the court and most dominant theorists that the provisions of Article 756 of Civil Act should apply not only to the employment of domestic workers, but also to the employment of corporate employees since the Civil Act does not have any special provisions that govern general liabilities of companies, and that the legal basis that a victim can be paid sufficient damages lies in the operation of Article 756. This paper will review legal theories regarding the employer’s liability and analyze and ealuate the legal theory presented in the judgment with a focus on one of the Supreme court’s recent judgments wherein some employees of the indemnifying company and the indemnified company misappropriated deposits of the indemnified company, in collusion with each other, unlike common cases that occurred in relation to the existing employer’s liability.

공동사용자 개념과 논의의 한국적 함의

박현희 노동법이론실무학회 2018 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.23

In the US a norm ruling a growing multi-party employment relationship has been the joint employment doctrine, which means that if multi-employers involve a principal terms of employment of an employee, on the condition that some requirement are fulfilled, every party of all multi-employers is considered as an employer under the labor law, and liabilities of labor relations are imposed on them. The Fair Labor Standards Act (F.L.S.A.) considers it inappropriate for protection of workers and fair competition that liabilities are imposed only a certain employer if multiple employers are involved in a single labor of an employee. Subcontractors’ financial condition can have an negative effect on the employees regardless of liabilities to pay, therefore, for achieving objectives of the law F.L.S.A. puts joint liabilities on prime contractors if they meet the economical substance criteria. Under the National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A.), whose objective is to establish fair union-management relations, such as prohibition of unfair labor practices and maintaining union-management balance of power, a prime contractor are regarded as a joint employer by regulative criteria of the common law if there’s chance that he commits unfair labor practices. Recently, like Browning Perry's case, which means under the collective labor relations the requirements for an joint employer are significantly alleviated, N.L.R.A. has been reinforced the joint employment doctrine and dealt actively with a issue of a growing joint employment. Due to the difference of the legal definition of “employer”, it is difficult to apply the joint employment discussion in the U. S. to Korea without any adjustment. But, they have a common interest in the background of the discussion, which is nothing less than the issue of how to put employers’ liability under the labor law on user-companies under the labor relation with multiple employers. Therefore, the joint employment doctrine in the US gives us many implications of how to expand to one who is not a party of an employment contract the liabilities of employers under the labor relation of multiple employers. The joint employment doctrine has the many implications for Korean labor law, which are the necessity for the doctrine regulates the whole indirect employment irrespective of types of contracts and for imposing joint liability to multiple employers in spite of separated employment relations, and considering fair competition among companies as the reason for the foregoing, etc. The measures that should be considered for introduction and where the joint employment doctrine could be applied are as follows : imposing joint liability on prime contractors or franchise chains, which forces them to be taken on the liability for paying the minimum wage to indirect employment workers, or imposing the duty to bargain on user-companies on leased employees’ request when subcontractors are changed, or commit unfair labor practices. 미국은 확산되는 공동고용 상황에서 일정한 요건을 충족하는 경우 공동사용자 법리(joint employment doctrine)를 통해 규율하여 왔는데, ‘공동사용자 법리’란 한 근로자의 핵심적인 고용조건에 대해 복수의 사용자가 관여할 경우, 일정한 조건이 충족되면 복수의 사용자 모두를 법상 사용자로 간주하여 노동관계법상 책임을 부과하는 것이다. 미국 공정근로기준법의 경우 한 근로자의 단일한 노동에 대하여 공동사용자가 개입되어 있는 경우라면 근로자보호 및 공정경쟁의 측면에서 특정 사용자에게만 책임을 묻는 것만으로는 적절하지 않으며, 하청기업의 자력이 임금지급에 대한 법적 규제에도 불구하고 변수로 작용할 수 있으므로 법의 목적을 달성하기 위해 경제적 실체기준에 부합하는 원청에게는 공동책임을 부과한다. 노사간의 힘 균형과 부당노동행위 방지 등 공정한 노사관계를 위한 전국노동관계법은 원청이 부당노동행위를 할 가능성이 있으면 보통법상 통제기준에 의해 원청에게 공동사용자 지위를 인정하는데, 최근에는 브라우닝페리스 사건을 통해 집단적 노사관계 부문에서 공동사용자의 요건을 대폭 완화하는 등 공동사용자 법리를 강화하는 방식으로 증가하는 공동고용 상황에 보다 적극적으로 대처하고 있다, 한국과 미국은 복수사용자 노동관계에서의 “사용자”정의의 법적 기초에서부터 차이가 있어 미국의 논의를 동일하게 적용하기는 곤란할 수 있는 것이 사실이다. 그러나, 논의의 배경인 복수사용자 노동관계에 있어 사용기업에 대한 노동법상의 사용자 책임이라는 문제에의 관심은 공통적이다. 이런 점에서 미국에서 종래 전형고용과 구별된 복수사용자 노동관계에 대해서 사용자로서의 책임을 고용계약당사자가 아닌 자에게 어떻게 확장하는가라는 관점에서 미국의 공동사용자이론은 우리에게 상당한 시사를 준다. 공동사용자 법리는 계약의 형식에 구애되지 않고 간접고용 전반을 아우를 수 있는 보호법리의 필요성, 복수의 사용자로 고용 및 근로관계의 분화에도 불구하고 공동책임을 부과할 필요성과 그 이유로서 기업간 공정경쟁이라는 측면에서의 고려 등 우리 노동법에 여러 의미 있는 시사를 준다. 도급근로자 혹은 프랜차이즈 가맹점 근로자 등 간접고용 근로자에게 최저임금을 보장할 책임을 원청이나 프랜차이즈 본사에 직접 묻을 수 있도록 연대책임을 부과하는 방법 혹은 파견 근로자가 사용사업주에게 업체가 교체되거나 부당노동행위 등 일정한 경우 단체교섭을 요구하면 사용사업주에게 교섭의무를 부과하는 방법 등은 적극적으로 국내 도입을 검토할 필요가 있으며 그 경우 미국 공동사용자 법리를 활용할 수 있다.

성희롱책임과 보험담보에 대한 연구

신인식 한국보험학회 2005 保險學會誌 Vol.70 No.-

최근 우리나라에서도 성희롱책임을 인정하는 법원의 판결 후 이에 대한 사회적 인식과 관심이 커지고 있다. 먼저 본 논문에서는 성희롱책임의 연혁, 법적 성질 및 특성, 책임의 유형과 성립요건, 사용자책임의 범위, 제3자에 의한 성희롱책임의 인정여부와 성희롱책임의 근거법리로 채무불이행책임, 불법행위책임, 사용자책임 등을 미국법 및 판례를 참고하여 비교법적으로 검토하였다. 특히 성희롱책임을 담보하는 보험과 관련해서 사용자책임을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 다음으로 성희롱책임이 성립하여도 가해자인 근로자나 대위책임을 지는 사용자가 배상자력이 없으면 피해자구제에 실효를 기할 수 없다. 따라서 피해자구제에 필수적인 성희롱을 담보하는 고용관행배상책임보험에서 성희롱책임의 담보에 대하여 담보위험과 면책사유를 중심으로 살펴보았다. 또한 직접 성희롱책임위험을 담보하지 않는 영업배상책임보험, 산채보험과 사용자 배상책임보험 및 임원배상책임보험에서 성희롱책임이 담보될 수 있는지가 최근 미국 판례나 실무에서 논란이 되고 있는데 미국의 약관을 기초로 한 우리의 경우도 마찬가지로 성희롱책임의 담보분쟁이 생길 수 있다. 이에 대한 검토를 보험종목별로 살펴보았다. Social knowledge and interests on sexual harassment liability has increased since the court decisions in Korea. The sexual harassment liability began in the U.S.A in 1976 with the court decisions. And it also began in Korea in 1993 with the supreme court decision. The sexual harassment liability mostly occurred in employments. Its legal theories are based on the civil rights of equal employment opportunity between man and woman. But sexual harassment liability is based on breach of contract liability, tort liability or employer's liability. In particular employer's liability is the key to the insurance coverage of sexual harassment. There are three types of sexual harassment liability. There is no single insurance policy covering the sexual harassment liability. The employment practices liability insurance covering the sexual harassment liability risks with other risks in the employment such as wrongful termination, wrongful job transfer and other discriminations by reason of race, nationality, gender and age. Nowadays in the U.S.A. there are many sexual harassment coverage disputes in the C.G.L., D&O and W/C and E/L insurance. We may have the same situations because our country's above-mentioned policies are based on the wordings of the U.S.A. So the analysis and interpretation for these issues are also needed for preventing and solving sexual harassment liability insurance coverage disputes.

산업재해에 대한 도급사업주의 민사책임 - 사용자책임을 중심으로

이지은 아주대학교 법학연구소 2017 아주법학 Vol.10 No.4

산업의 고도화·전문화로 인하여 산업재해 발생의 위험은 증대되었으나, 고용형태는 고용계약에 의한 직접적 고용관계 또는 근로계약관계가 아닌 도급 등의 간접고용 방식이 오히려 더 보편화되었다. 이에 산업재해 피해를 입은 수급근로자들은 산업재해보상보험법 등에 따라 받는 보상을 초과하는 손해에 대하여 도급인 또는 도급사업주에게 민사상 손해배상을 청구하는 것이 대부분이며, 그 법적 근거는 사용자책임을 규정한 민법 제756조 또는 도급인의 책임을 규정한 민법 제757조가 될 것이다. 원칙적으로 도급관계에 있어서 수급인은 독립적인 지위에서 자신의 재량에 따라 일을 수행하므로 도급인은 수급인이 제3자에게 가한 손해에 대하여 민법 제757조 전문에 따라 아무런 책임을 부담하지 않는다. 그러나 도급인과 수급인 사이에 “실질적 지휘·감독관계”가 있는 경우, 즉 “사용관계”가 인정되는 경우에는 도급인은 민법 제756조에 따라 수급인이 제3자에게 가한 손해를 배상하여야 한다. 그리고 도급인과 수급인 사이에 사용관계가 인정되지 아니하고 수급인이 본래적 의미의 수급인으로서의 지위에 따라 도급인에게 종속되지 아니하고 독립적인 지위에서 일을 수행하는 경우에는 도급인은 도급 또는 지시에 관하여 중대한 과실이 있는 경우에만 민법 제757조 후문에 따라 수급인이 제3자에게 가한 손해를 배상하여야 한다. 결국 도급인의 면책을 규정한 민법 제757조 전문의 내용은 민법 제756조의 사용자책임의 내용을 주의적으로 규정한 것이며, 민법 제757조 후문은 수급인이 독립적인 지위에서 그 일을 완성하는 본래적 의미의 도급관계에 있어서 도급 또는 지시에 중대한 과실이 있는 도급인에게는 손해배상책임을 부담시키는 대신 경미한 과실이 있는 도급인을 면책하는 의미를 가진다고 할 것이다. 민법 제756조와 제757조에 대한 위와 같은 이해에 따르면, 사내도급에 있어서 발생한 산업재해와 관련하여 도급인은 수급인이 산업안전보건법상 제반 안전조치의무를 위반함으로 인하여 수급근로자에게 발생한 업무상 재해에 대하여 다음과 같이 민사상 책임을 부담하게 된다. 첫째, 도급인이 산업안전보건법 제29조의 도급사업주의 지위를 가지면서 도급인 스스로도 수급인에 대한 산업안전보건법 제29조 제3항의 적극적인 안전보건조치의무를 부담하는 경우에는 도급인이 수급인에 대하여 실질적인 지휘·감독관계를 형성하였다고 보아 도급사업주인 도급인은 수급인의 안전보건조치 미비로 인하여 발생한 수급근로자의 산업재해 피해에 대하여 그 과실의 경중을 따지지 않고 민법 제756조에 따라 사용자책임을 부담한다. 둘째, 도급인이 산업안전보건법 제29조의 도급사업주에 해당하기는 하나 산업안전보건법 제29조 제2항에서 정한 바와 같이 수급인에 대한 일반적인 관리의무만을 부담하고 수급근로자에 대한 직접적인 안전보건조치의무는 그와 직접적 계약관계가 있는 수급인만이 부담하는 경우 또는 도급인이 산업안전보건법 제29조의 도급사업주에 해당하지 않는 경우에는 도급인과 수급인 간에 실질적인 지휘·감독관계가 인정되지 않으므로, 수급인의 안전보건조치 미비로 인하여 수급근로자가 산업재해 피해를 입은 경우 도급인은 원칙적으로 민법 제757조 전문 또는 민법 제756조의 반대해석에 따라 아무런 법적 책임을 부담하지 않는다고 보아야 할 것이다. 그러나 이 경우에도 만약 도급인이 안전보건조치 관련 지시에 대하여 중대한 과실이 있고 이로 인하여 손해가 발생한 경우에는 그 경우에 한하여 민법 제757조 후문에 따라 그 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다고 보아야 할 것이다. The chances of being injured at work are on the rise due to industrial sophistication and specialization, it has become more common for businesses to hire contractors, rather than employees. Thereupon, workers employed by their contractor who has suffered from an industrial accident often claim against their employers for supplementary damages in addition to claim for insurance money by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and they may rely on the provisions of the Civil Act, particularly its Article 756 which prescribes the employer’s liability and Article 757 which prescribes the independent contractor’s liability, as a legal basis of the damage claim against their employer. As stated in the first half of Article 757 of the Civil Act, a person who placed an order for a work to be done is not bound to make compensation for any damages caused to a third person by an independent contractor who completes work to his or her own discretion. However, in the case where the employer has provided “substantive instructions and/or supervision” to the contractor and, by doing so, formed “an employer-employee relationship” with the contractor, he or she is liable for compensating for any loss inflicted on a third person by the contractor, according to Article 756. If the contractor remained independent throughout the course of performing work – that is, the contractor was not given instructions and/or supervision as a subordinate by the employer who ordered the work – no legal recognition is given to their relations as “an employer-employee relationship” and therefore the employer who placed the order for the work will not be liable for compensating for the damages inflicted on a third person by the contractor, unless the former was guilty of gross negligence in placing the order or in providing instructions thereof, in accordance with the second half of Article 757. On the one hand, the first half of Article 757 of the Civil Act, which prescribes the limits of liability of independent contractor, is essentially an emphasis of Article 756 of the same Act, which prescribes the employer’s liability. On the other hand, the second half of Article 757 states that an employer who committed gross negligence in the course of ordering a fully independent contractor to perform work shall be liable to pay compensation, and grants immunity to employer who committed a slight negligence in providing instructions and/or supervision to the contractor. According to such interpretations of Articles 756 and 757 of the Civil Act, when a contractor’s worker suffers from an industrial accident, the contractor who have failed to comply with the safety and/or health measures prescribed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the employer may be liable for damages as follows : First, the employer who ordered the work is liable to pay compensation regardless of the degree of his or her negligence under Article 756, if the employer is considered as employer which is prescribed in Article 29 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and under obligation to comply with the safety and/or health measures which is prescribed in Article 29 Paragraph 3. Second, in the case the employer is considered as employer which is prescribed in Article 29 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and under obligation to comply with the safety and/or health measures which is prescribed in Article 29 Paragraph 2 or the employer is not considered as employer which is prescribed in Article 29 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the employer who ordered the work to the Contractor assumes no legal responsibility in principle according to the first half of Article 757 and an alternative interpretation of Article 756 of the Civil Act, however, if the employer who placed an order for a work to be done is found to be guilty of inflicting damage due to gross negligence, he or she may be held liable to pay compensation, as prescribed by the second half of Article 757 of the Civil Act.

사용자배상책임과 구상권의 제한

김용호 ( Yong Ho Kim ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학논총 Vol.39 No.3

Civil code Article 756 and defined as follows. Article 756 (1) of the Civil Act, “A person who employs another to carry out an undertaking shall be bound to make compensation for damages done to a third person by the employee in the course of the execution of the undertaking: Provided, That this shall not be the case, if the employer has exercised due care in the appointment of the employee, and the supervision of the undertaking, or if the damage would have resulted even if due care had been exercised.” Article 756 (2) of the Civil Act, “A person who supervises the undertaking in place of the employer shall also assume the same liability as set forth in paragraph (1).” Article 756 (3) of the Civil Act, “In cases of paragraphs (1) and (2), the employer or the supervisor may exercise the right to obtain reimbursement from the employee.” This paper studies about employer’s of Indemnity Rights for the civil employees of Article 756 (3). First, the legal nature of the liability provided for in Article 756 employer’s liability are responsible captain. Therefore, employees are the damages caused to a third party for your employees Indemnity Rights recognized by profiteers. Second, Article 756 of employer’s liability seems appropriate to resolve whether to allow the users of Indemnity Rights for the employee by the dual use of domestic labor in relation with the use of corporate relations. Third, Article 756 (3) relationships to find its basis on the initiative of default due to the breach of their and employees, based on the user’s Indemnity Rights restriction is the most appropriate theory of default Fourth, restriction of right of Indemnification employer of Indemnity Rights shall be determined to the extent deemed significant in terms of equitable sharing of trust and good faith of damages. Finally, employer of Indemnity Rights is recognized only when it is appropriate to intentional or gross negligence by employees. Thus Article 756 (3) amendments are desirable.

사용자책임에 관한 미국 판례의 동향

정소민 ( Chung Somin ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2014 외법논집 Vol.38 No.1

In the U.S., employers’ vicarious liability refers to cases in which an employer is held responsible for the wrongful acts of the employee within the scope of employment. This article describes main characteristics of employers’ vicarious liability under the U.S. law from a comparative law perspective. First, employers’ vicarious liability is strict liability. Accordingly, the employer is held liable for the torts of the employee even if the employer is not negligent in selecting or supervising the employee. Second, under employers’ vicarious liability, it is required that the man at work is an employee. In determining whether he is an employee or not, the control test is performed: physical conduct in the performance of the service is controlled, or is subject to a right of control by the employer. Therefore, an independent contractor is not considered as an employee. Third, it is also required that the tortious conduct of an employee is within the scope of the employment. In this regard, it is the general rule that employers’ vicarious liability covers the employee’s small deviations from the work set by his employer but not large ones. However, no hard and fast rule exists with respect to the intentional tort of an employee. Such behaviors may be within the course of employment if intended to serve the employer’s interest. However, many cases reject that motive test. Additionally, the modern trend rejects vicarious liability for employee sexual misconduct, reasoning that these type of torts are purely personal in nature and unrelated to the employee’s duties. Lastly, employers’ vicarious liability tends to extend to the cases where the employee performs a wrongful act at cyberspace workplace or via telecommunication device.