근로자 파견 법리의 불법구조와 분석 - 파견과 도급의 구별 기준 정립을 위한 시론 = The Structure of Legal Principles in Violating the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers: The Classifying Standard of Temporary and Contract Work

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

To manage an efficient business organization as well as save production and labor cost, businesses largely rely on external labor. External labor is mainly used in the form of in-house subcontracting where a client contractor (hereinafter “client”) facilitates workers of another prime contractor (hereinafter “contractor”) to work at the client’s workplace. The problem, however, is not in contracting out and making use of external labor. The problem is that even though businesses hire workers with rights protected by the Temporary Work Act or the Fixed-term Act, they disguise these workers as contract workers or entrusted workers to avoid being subject to related labor laws. Disguised subcontracting not only raises problems in the context of labor law, it also raises inequity issues. As disguised contracting is subject to criminal punishment under the Temporary Work Act, it is important to distinguish contract work and temporary work prior to punishing the user company.




Unfortunately, the current law does not clearly distinguish the difference between contract work and temporary work. To be sure, progress has been made regarding this issue. As a result, many cases were accumulated and composed together to establish legal principles that provide standards to differentiate contract work and temporary work. In addition, in 2015, the Supreme Court provided a general standard using various cases including the Hyundai Motor case. Despite the provision of the general standard, however, a more explicit standard to differentiate the two works is required for the following reasons: first, the general standard is a mere group of signs drawn from previous cases; second, the general standard does not fully reflect the distinctive features of each respective type of in-house subcontracting; and third, the process of making a comprehensive judgement after individual judgement is very unclear and as a result, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in 2015, judgements among lower courts have remained inconsistent.




Also, the Korean government has been making efforts to address the problem of disguised contracting on industrial sites by referring to the Guidelines on the Judging Standards of Temporary Placement of Workers (April 19, 2007) as outlined in the Reference to Classify Temporary and Contract Work. However, these guidelines do not reflect the general standard set out by the Supreme Court in 2015. This type of miscommunication can hinder the predictability of judgements distinguishing temporary and contract work, and eventually weaken the public’s trust in law. It can also raise doubts on the effect of measures taken to prevent further disguised contracting. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Supreme Court focused on the status of the worker when establishing the classifying standard. Thus, further discussion is necessary to determine the suitability of the standard when applying it to interpret criminal elements related to the violation of the Temporary Work Act.




Based on such research, this article concludes that the current Temporary Work Act should be at the center of establishing the classifying standard. This article also proposes a new standard to distinguish temporary and contract work focusing on the requirements of temporary work under the current Temporary Work Act, as well as the specific contents of the authority to conduct which was developed through the legal principle set out by the Supreme Court.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이헌주, "허용되지 아니한 파견영역에서의 자발적 파견근로관계에 대한 형사처벌 가능성" 대검찰청 (47) : 71-102, 2015

2 고용노동부, "합리적인 파견·도급 구별기준에 관한 연구" 2014

3 박제성, "하청노동론-근로계약의 도급계약화 현상에 대한 법학적 분석" 퍼플 2018

4 김대근, "파견법위반죄의 구성요건에 대한 연구 : 파견과 도급의 구별기준을 중심으로" 한국형사정책연구원 2017

5 조경배, "파견노동 및 현행 파견법의 문제점과 법적 과제" 민주주의법학연구회 (62) : 15-45, 2016

6 노동부, "파견·도급 구별 참고자료"

7 데버러 헬먼, "차별이란 무엇인가: 차별은 언제 나쁘고 언제 그렇지 않은가" 서해문집 2016

8 김대근, "차별 개념의 규범적 이해"

9 최은배, "위장도급의 판단 ― 파견과 도급의 준별 ―" 서울대학교노동법연구회 (31) : 1-50, 2011

10 김형배, "새로쓴 노동법" 박영사 2016

11 송강직, "사내도급에서의 위장도급과 불법파견의 상호관계" 비교법학연구소 32 : 351-384, 2011

12 박지순, "비정규직법의 쟁점과 입법정책적 과제" 한국고용노사관계학회 19 (19): 27-65, 2009

13 김기선, "불법파견에 대한 벌칙규정의 적용" 한국노동법학회 (37) : 2011

14 강보라, "묵시적 근로계약관계 법리와 불법파견을 중심으로 본 KTX 승무업무의 법적 성질" 6 : 2016

15 이승길, "도급과 파견의 구별에 관한 판단기준 - 대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고, 2010다106436 판결을 중심으로 -" 법학연구원 27 (27): 313-338, 2015

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

17 김봉수, "노무도급과 위장도급" 안암법학회 (39) : 353-400, 2012

18 알랭 쉬 피오, "노동법 비판" 오래 2017

19 임종률, "노동법" 박영사 2015

20 이상희, "근로자파견법의 목적과 개선 방향"

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

22 고용노동부, "고용노동백서" 2016

23 은수미, "간접고용 국제비교" 한국노동연구원 2012

24 권영환, "‘파견과 도급의 구별’이라는 틀의 재검토" 서울대학교노동법연구회 (30) : 285-308, 2011

25 조경배, "KTX 대법원 판결과 파견과 도급의 구별기준" 한국노동법학회 (56) : 311-343, 2015

26 김대근, "Amartya Sen의 정의론의 방법과 구조" 한국법철학회 14 (14): 171-204, 2011