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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2022.3
- 수록면
- 263 - 302 (40page)
- DOI
- 10.69596/JLL.2022.03.81.263
이용수
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.
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 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
영국노동법의 인적 적용범위와 플랫폼 노동
노동법학
2020 .03
-
노동기본권 보장의 현대적 조명 - 최선의 법해석을 향한 노력 -
노동법포럼
2025 .03
-
경제위기 이후 스페인 노동시장의 개혁과 성과 -고용지표의 변화를 통한 고찰-
지중해지역연구
2019 .01
-
서울시 노동정책 발전전략
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2015 .07
-
현대 사회에서 헌법상 근로자 개념의 재구성
헌법학연구
2024 .03
-
헌법 제32조의 근로의 권리를 통한 디지털 플랫폼 노동자 보호에 관한 연구
법학논집
2021 .01
-
노동운동의 법적 통제와 법치주의 국가전략: 희망의 법? 절망의 법?
산업노동연구
2016 .01
-
플랫폼 노동의 정의와 노동권·단결권·사회권 관련 법·제도 비교연구: 한국과 유럽연합을 중심으로
한국사회정책
2023 .12
-
Thailand’s Ratification of the 2014 Protocol to the Forced Labour Convention of 1930
JOURNAL OF EAST ASIA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
2019 .01
-
플랫폼 노동과 사회계약의 재구성
시민과세계
2022 .06
-
테크놀로지, 노동, 그리고 삶의 취약성
한국언론정보학보
2016 .10
-
영국 노동관계법의 적용대상과 특수고용노동
법과기업연구
2015 .12
-
서울시 노동정책 전략사업
서울연구원 정책과제연구보고서
2015 .12
-
대안적 노동 원리 : 노동으로부터의 해방과 노동을 통한 해방
마르크스주의 연구
2015 .02
-
노동기본권의 실현을 위한 의회와 법원의 역할
공법연구
2018 .02
-
문재인정부 노동정책 1년 : 평가와 전망
산업노동연구
2018 .01
-
박근혜 정부 노동개혁 정치에 대한 비판적 고찰
민주사회와 정책연구
2017 .01
-
디지털 전환시대 플랫폼 노동자의 법적 보호방안
법학연구
2021 .06
-
공유경제(sharing economy)의 노동법적 쟁점 : 미국에서의 근로자성 판단 논의를 중심으로
노동법연구
2017 .03
-
Labour Protection Policy in a Third World Economy : the Case of Indonesia
Journal of Asian Sociology
2018 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2022-336-001070190