. . 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.
* 2013
**
: 2014. 10. 27. / : 2014. 11. 25. / : 2014. 11. 28.
.
‘ ’ ‘
’( ‘ ’ )
.1) 2)
.
.
.
3)
2011 4 12
.4)
.
.
1) 2014. 2. 13. , 2011 78804 .
2) 2011. 8. 26. , 2009 112116
3) AS .
4) INAX maintenance ( 21 4 12 1529
1 , 4 ).
.
.
.5)
. ‘
’( ) ,
, , , ‘ ’
.
3 .6)
3
.
5)
, .
6) , “ 3 ”, 22 , 2006,
402
3 .7)
.
.
.
.8)
.
,
, , ,
, ,
.
7) , ,
8) .
(“
”, 41 , 2011, 337-366 ) (“
-2011 ”,
19 , 2012) .
, .
.
9) ,
.10)
.11) .
.
( )
, ,
.
9) , , , 2011, 42
10) , , , 2005, 23 ; , , , 2002, 190
; , , , 2001, 383 .
11)
,
( , , , 2014,
35 ). , .
.12) ‘
’
.13)
. 9
2 1 3
,
.14)
.
.
.15) ,
, ‘ ’
‘ ’
.
12) , “ ,”, 642 , 2009, 2 .
13) , “ -
”, no.1426, 2011, 57 .
14) , ( 9 ), , 2010, 511 .
15) , 13), 54 .
, .
.
‘
’ .
3
.16)
(
) .
.
.
,
1985 ‘
’17)
16) , 13), 55 .
17) , - ,
, 1986, 53 . ‘ ’
. ‘
’ ‘ ’ ,
, , ,
‘ ’
,
.
.
“
”
.18)
,
, , ,
.
,
.
2014
.
‘ ’ .
( , ) .
18) INAX , , 21 9 16.
.19)
.20)
.21)
1993 2014 ( ‘
’)22) 2006 ( ‘
’)23) .
,
. 1993
2014
. ‘ ’
, ,
, 3 .
19)
‘ ’ .
‘ ’ ( 1993. 5. 25 , 90 1731 ).
20) “
” “ ”
(2001. 9. 4. , 2001 6783 ).
21) 2004. 2. 27. , 2001 8568 .
22) 1993. 5. 25. , 90 1731 ; 2014. 2. 13. , 2011 78804 .
23) 2006. 12. 07. , 2004 29736 .
‘ ’
.
. ‘
’ .
.
.
.
.
, “ ”
‘ ’
. ‘ ’
,
.
.
.
.
.
2014
.
.
. .
.
. 2006
24)( ‘ ’) ,
24)
. “
( )
, ,
3
1993 2006
.
.
‘
’ .
2014 2004
‘
’
. 25)
“
‘ ’
.”
.
. ,
, , ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
,
”( 2006. 12. 07. 2004 29736 ).
25) 2011. 8. 26. , 2009 112116 .
.
,
.
, ,
,
.
.
.26)
26) . (a)
, (b) , (c) , (d)
, (e)
, (f)
, (g) , (f)
8 . 2006
.
‘ ’ ‘ ’ ,
. , ,
. .
.
( )
.
.
.
.
.
( 2 4 )
.
× × ×
× ×
×
(INAX ) ×
× ×
, × ×
×
× × ×
× × ×
× × ×
: : × :
.
.
. .
5 , ,
, , ,
.27)
( )
( )
.
CBC 28)
. ,
, .
,
‘ ’
.
. 2014
‘ ’ ‘ ’
.
.
27) 5 (
).
28) 51.5.6 30 4 , 437 .
.
.
.
. ,
, ,
29)
,
30) .
,
.31)
( ) (
, )
( )
.
.
.
.
29) , “ ”, no.1426, 2011, 8 .
30) / / , “[ ] ”.
no.1426, 2011, 45 ,
31) , “ ”, no.1426, 2011, 10 .
( , )
. “
... ”
. ,
.32)
‘ ’
. ‘
’ ,
.
.
. ‘
’
.
32) 2011. 8. 26. , 2009 112116 .
“
‘ ’ .” .
.
. .
(1)
5
, ,
.
.
.
‘ ’
.
.
“
.”
.
.
.33) INAX
,
.
.
.
, ,
.
.
.
33)
.
, .
.
CBC ‘ ’
.
.
( )
.34)
.
.
. INAX
.
.
. 2014
, (a) , , , (b)
34) , 8.11.28, 714 14 .
, (c)
, (d) , (e)
. (e)
‘ ’, ,
.
‘ ’
.
‘ ’
.
. 2006
.
.
, 3
, ,
, ,
.
. ,
.
. 2014
‘ ’
.
.
. ,
.
. “
”
. ‘ ’
.
5 .35)
35)
.
.
“
” .
. ‘ ’
.
.
.36) ‘ ’
. ‘
’ ‘ ’ ‘ ’ .
( / /
, 30), 30-31 ).
. INAX “
” (INAX
, , 21 9 16).
.
36) ‘ ’
, 2 1
.
.
' .'
.37) 3
.
( ‘ ’
) .
.
.
, ,
. 3
.
37) 2004. 2. 27. , 2001 8568 .
.
.
.
.
.
. 3
.
3 (
) 7 2 (
) ‘ ’ .38)
3 .
38) 7 2 “ ‘ ’
” .
,
.
. ,
. 3
.
.
.
. 33
.
.
.
.39)
39) / / , 30), 47 .
.
.
.
.
. 1
.
. 2 4
.
2 1
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. 3
.
.
.40)
.
.
,
, ,
AS .
40) / / , , , 2011,
39 .
AS
.
, , , ,
, .
,
.
.
. ‘ ’
. .
.
. .
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
, ,
.
.
.
.
, ( 20 ), , 2011.
, , , 2005.
, , , 2002.
, “ ”, 41 ,
, 2011.
, , , 2001.
, ( 12 ), , 2014.
, “ 3 ”, 22
, , 2006.
. “ - 2011
”, 19 , ,
2012.
/ / , “[ ] ”.
no.1426, 2011.
, “ ,”, 642 , 2009.
, “ ”, no.1426, 2011.
, ( 9 ), , 2010.
, “ ”, no.1426, 2011.
, “ -
”, no.1426, 2011.
, ( 2 ), , 2013.
/ / , ,
, 2011.
, -
, , 1986.
< >
. ,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
, ,
.
.
Journal of Legislation Research / 47th Issue
A Comparative Review on Legal Reasoning of Korean and Japanese Supreme Courts concerning the Concept of Worker in
Labour Union Law
Cho, Kyung-Bae*41)
The Supreme Courts of Korea and Japan seem to start taking a more positive stance than in the past with respect to the identity of the worker in Trade Union Law distinguished from the concept of worker in Labor Standards Law. The importance of the indicators of organizational or economic dependency is growing whereas the indicators that show personal dependency turn to act as a passive role in determining whether he/she is a worker or not. This change are reflecting an awareness that economic dependency of workers has been persisting or intensifying while personal dependency has been weakening to some extent due to the diversification of employment in accordance with the changes in the industry structure and management skills. It can be seen as part of efforts of the judiciary to ensure the adequacy of worker’s criteria that the decisive role of the traditional indicators of personal dependency is changing into more and more complementary elements identifying the worker. In this sense, a recent change in the basic position of the Supreme Courts of Korea and Japan is considerably noteworthy
The change in the attitude of the Supreme Courts has such a positive aspect, but it also has several limitations that need a careful review. There are a number of critical comments about the judicial ambiguity in the evaluation of the Japanese Supreme Court rulings. Even though similar at first glance, there exist significant differences from Korea with regard to several statutory provisions relating to the worker, general definition vs. case by case judgement, etc. Furthermore, it is to be noted that there is a
* Professor, Soonchunhyang Univ.
:
previous years with respect to the factors to be considered in the determination of whether the worker is or not and the evaluation method for the related facts, it still includes a variety of issues to be resolved. For the stability of the application and interpretation of law, a more in-depth discussion for establishment of consistent and clear criteria remains as an important task of labour law.
