메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
윤애림 (서울대학교)
저널정보
한국노동법학회 노동법학 노동법학 제81호
발행연도
2022.3
수록면
263 - 302 (40page)
DOI
10.69596/JLL.2022.03.81.263

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
In determining the existence of an employment contract relationship, Korean judicial precedents have consistently required the existence of a “user-subordinate relation”, holding that: the user-subordinate relation is determined by actual labour relations such as the existence of direction/supervision relations, wages as a price for labour, the nature and content of labour between the employer and provider of labour regardless of the form of the labour supply contract, be it contract of employment, contract for work, delegation or anonymous. While various indicators have been listed in judicial precedents, previously the courts noted an existence of ‘personal dependence’ such as whether the employer directed or supervised concretely and/or directly the performance of work, before other indicators.
Like other jurisdictions, an emergence of new type of precarious work mediated via digital labour platform has challenged the validity of such case law. In particular, the claim that platform workers could freely choose whether, when and where they work makes the classification of platform workers more difficult.
Against this, European courts are recently deciding that platform workers such as Uber drivers, delivery riders and micro-task workers are those who should be entitled to labour protection. This article conducts a comparative study on these judicial decisions of the highest courts in France, Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and Korea. From this comparative study, some common features and lessons are found as follows:
First and foremost, the principle of primacy of facts is notably adopted and applied by a wide rage of national courts. It is noteworthy in particular, that European courts do not cling to the contractual terms of the agreement to the detriment of an assessment based on the actual circumstances of the case.
Furthermore, the possibility of workers to set their schedules and not be formally obliged to log on the digital labour platforms does not constitute an insurmountable obstacles in many jurisdictions. For example, the theoretical freedom to set own schedule is quite different from the actual freedom, in the courts" view.
In addition, (in)direct control that exercised by digital labour platforms via algorithmic management, makes it possible to manage in a way that is as effective as or even more than management based on direct control/direction given by an employer to his/her employees.

목차

Ⅰ. 시작하며
Ⅱ. 플랫폼 노동에 대한 각국 최고법원 판례
Ⅲ. 해외 판례 법리의 시사점
Ⅳ. 맺으며
참고문헌
Abstract

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2022-336-001070190