지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In Korea, sexual harassment has attracted public attention at Ms. Woo, professor’s assistant lecture, case in 1993. In case, the Supreme Court regarded sexual harassment as an art of tort, as defined by art. 750 Civil Law. But sexual harassment is regarded as an art of discrimination based on gender after Gender Discrimination Prohibit and Relief Act was enacted in 1999. This act prescribed “sexual harassment is sex discrimination” at art. 7 sec 4. But this act was abolished in 06.2005 and after that time, the National Human Rights Commission(NHRC) is responsible for the legal control of sexual harassment instead of the Minister of Gender Equality(MOGE). National Human Rights Commission Act(NHRCA) prescribe sexual harassment is an art of ‘discriminatory act violating the right to equality’ at art. 2 sec. 3 (d) and “the term “sexual harassment” means a sexually-suggestive comment or act made by employers or employees of public institutions that causes the sense of sexually-related humiliation or degradation in business, employment or other relations in or outside the workplace ; or sexual conduct initiated by supervisory employers or employees of public institutions that results in disadvantage in employment or business by reasons of refusal to respond to such sexually-suggestive language, act or demand” at art. 2 sec. 3 (d).
But there are many opinions about what ‘sexually-suggestive comment or act’ is. Sexual harassment is different with sexual violence or the others sexual violating acts in criminal law or criminology etc. Because it started from the Labor Law theme of work surroundings and employment relations. Therefore it does not mean that all sexual comments or acts are controlled by NHRCA.
In this paper I want to examine about the Ruling of the National Human Rights Commission(and MOGE) about sexual harassment in comparison with the decision of Court about sexual harassment. For this examination, especially, I will analyze real cases that were filed an administrative litigation against the Ruling of the National Human Rights Commission(and MOGE) about sexual harassment.
But there are many opinions about what ‘sexually-suggestive comment or act’ is. Sexual harassment is different with sexual violence or the others sexual violating acts in criminal law or criminology etc. Because it started from the Labor Law theme of work surroundings and employment relations. Therefore it does not mean that all sexual comments or acts are controlled by NHRCA.
In this paper I want to examine about the Ruling of the National Human Rights Commission(and MOGE) about sexual harassment in comparison with the decision of Court about sexual harassment. For this examination, especially, I will analyze real cases that were filed an administrative litigation against the Ruling of the National Human Rights Commission(and MOGE) about sexual harassment.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가면서
Ⅱ. 성희롱의 범위
Ⅲ. 성희롱 사실인정과 그 절차
Ⅳ. 결어
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (19)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (3)
-
대법원 2008. 10. 9. 선고 2008두7854 판결
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2008. 7. 10. 선고 2007두22498 판결
[1] 구 남녀고용평등법(2005. 5. 31. 법률 제7564호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제2항에서 규정한 `직장 내 성희롱’의 전제요건인 `성적인 언동 등’이란 남녀 간의 육체적 관계나 남성 또는 여성의 신체적 특징과 관련된 육체적, 언어적, 시각적 행위로서 사회공동체의 건전한 상식과 관행에 비추어 볼 때 객관적으
자세히 보기 -
대법원 2007. 6. 14. 선고 2005두6461 판결
[1] 구 남녀차별금지 및 구제에 관한 법률(2003. 5. 29. 법률 제6915호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제2호에서 규정한 성희롱의 전제요건인 `성적 언동 등’이란 남녀 간의 육체적 관계나 남성 또는 여성의 신체적 특징과 관련된 육체적, 언어적, 시각적 행위로서 사회공동체의 건전한 상식과 관행에 비추어 볼 때 객
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000849932