RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      골프장캐디의 노동법상의 지위 - 大判 2014. 2. 13, 2011다78804 및 이 판결의 원심 서울고법 2011. 8. 26, 2009나112116에 대한 비판적 검토 - = The Status of Golf Caddies by the Labor Law - A Critical Review of Supreme Court Decision 2011Da78804 Decided on February 13th, 2014 and Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na112116, the original trial -

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A104994337

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      In February 2014, the Supreme Court handed down its decision on whether to consider a golf caddie as a worker by the each definition of the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. The decision was to consider the golf caddie in this case as a worker by the definition of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, but not by the definition of the Labor Standards Act. However, this decision is questionable. If the golf caddie was in a independent relationship with the golf course company, it would be right to consider that there was no labor contract. In this case, the golf caddie was not a worker under the definition of the Labor Standards Act. Hence, the golf caddie was not a worker either by the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.
      This decision agrees to the precedent which clarified the definition of a worker by the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act as ‘a person lives on wages earned in pursuit of any type of job’. But in this decision, it is a contradiction that no direct labor contract between the golf caddie and the golf course company is needed to admit that the golf caddie is a worker by the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. What is more, the decision caused a confusion on the qualification of a worker on the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act ; who can join a labor union and who can be subject to a collective agreement. Therefore, if the golf caddie in this case was not a worker by the definition of the Labor Standards Act, then the golf caddie was also not a worker by the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.
      The status of golf caddies in the case should be acknowledged to be workers by the Labor Standards Act. A worker by the definition of the Labor Standards Act can join a labor union and may can ask for a collective bargaining through the union.
      번역하기

      In February 2014, the Supreme Court handed down its decision on whether to consider a golf caddie as a worker by the each definition of the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. The decision was to consider the go...

      In February 2014, the Supreme Court handed down its decision on whether to consider a golf caddie as a worker by the each definition of the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. The decision was to consider the golf caddie in this case as a worker by the definition of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, but not by the definition of the Labor Standards Act. However, this decision is questionable. If the golf caddie was in a independent relationship with the golf course company, it would be right to consider that there was no labor contract. In this case, the golf caddie was not a worker under the definition of the Labor Standards Act. Hence, the golf caddie was not a worker either by the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.
      This decision agrees to the precedent which clarified the definition of a worker by the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act as ‘a person lives on wages earned in pursuit of any type of job’. But in this decision, it is a contradiction that no direct labor contract between the golf caddie and the golf course company is needed to admit that the golf caddie is a worker by the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. What is more, the decision caused a confusion on the qualification of a worker on the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act ; who can join a labor union and who can be subject to a collective agreement. Therefore, if the golf caddie in this case was not a worker by the definition of the Labor Standards Act, then the golf caddie was also not a worker by the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.
      The status of golf caddies in the case should be acknowledged to be workers by the Labor Standards Act. A worker by the definition of the Labor Standards Act can join a labor union and may can ask for a collective bargaining through the union.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 菅野, "勞働法, 제9판" 2010

      2 박종희, "판례의 법형성적 기능과 한계 - 서울행정법원 2012.11.01. 선고 2011구합20239, 2011구합26770 판결(병합)에 대한 비판적 검토 -" 법학연구원 (70) : 191-239, 2013

      3 유성재, "캐디의「 노조법」상 근로자성" 2014

      4 김형배, "노동법(제23판)" 2014

      5 오윤식, "골프장캐디의 근로자성 - 서울고등법원 2011. 8. 26. 선고, 2009나112116 판결 -" 법조협회 61 (61): 157-203, 2012

      6 임상민, "골프장 캐디의 근로자성" 대한변호사협회 (430) : 64-93, 2012

      7 Larenz, "Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft" 1991

      8 F. Bydlinski, "Juristische Methodenlehre und Rechtsbegriff" 1991

      1 菅野, "勞働法, 제9판" 2010

      2 박종희, "판례의 법형성적 기능과 한계 - 서울행정법원 2012.11.01. 선고 2011구합20239, 2011구합26770 판결(병합)에 대한 비판적 검토 -" 법학연구원 (70) : 191-239, 2013

      3 유성재, "캐디의「 노조법」상 근로자성" 2014

      4 김형배, "노동법(제23판)" 2014

      5 오윤식, "골프장캐디의 근로자성 - 서울고등법원 2011. 8. 26. 선고, 2009나112116 판결 -" 법조협회 61 (61): 157-203, 2012

      6 임상민, "골프장 캐디의 근로자성" 대한변호사협회 (430) : 64-93, 2012

      7 Larenz, "Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft" 1991

      8 F. Bydlinski, "Juristische Methodenlehre und Rechtsbegriff" 1991

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2026 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2017-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2014-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2013-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2011-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.64 0.64 0.58
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.61 0.56 0.832 0.35
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼