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
- 2023.9
- 수록면
- 259 - 301 (43page)
- DOI
- 10.69596/JLL.2023.09.87.259
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article examined the case law formed to protect the termination of employment of fixed-term employees after the Supreme Court’s All-collegial Decision in 1996, and the core of which is to apply the legal principles of dismissal restriction to the termination of employment of fixed-term employees. Art. 23 ① and Art. 28 of the Labor Standards Act is applied by analogy because termination of employment relationship due to the employer’s refusal to renew, despite the trust that the employee will continue to be employed, is essentially the same as ‘dismissal’. These case law is Law-Forming action(Rechtsfortbildung) through the method of analogy.
The case law related to the interests of remedy are intended to protect fixed-term employees from unfair termination of employment, such as unfair dismissal by the employer during the employment contract period. Legal principles on virtually non-fixed term employment contract and expectations right is the case law to protect the employment relationship of fixed-term employees from the termination of employment due to the expiration of the employment contract period or the change of outsourcing company. It can be evaluated that the former legal principle has continued to expand the possibility of employment while being combined with the latter legal principle of expectations right.
Supreme Court’s All-collegial Decision 2019Du52386, decided February 20, 2020 is of great significance in that it paved the way for the practical operation of the dismissal restriction legal principle for dismissal during the employment contract period, and it was the background to the legislation of Art. 30 ④ of the LSA. With this legislation, it can be seen that it has now moved from the area of law-forming action by judges to the area of law-finding. However, the recent Supreme Court precedent seems to contradict this provision.
The legal principles on virtually non-fixed term employment contract is of great significance in that it played a role in the absence of a protective device for the termination of employment of fixed-term employees, and provided the basis for the birth of expectations right. On the other hand, there is a limit to the Judge’s interpretation of denying the explicit contents of the employment contract(employment contract period), which is the source of law(Rechtsquelle).
The right to expect renewal has been expanded to include the right to expect conversion to regular employment, and even the right to expect employment succession when changing outsourcing companies, and has achieved a certain level of completeness in terms of appearance. However, considering that the legal principles regarding the criteria for judging, judgment elements, and rational reasons, etc. for individual expectation rights still require ‘Forming’. And considering that the area where judges’ Law-Forming action is most dynamic is the area related to labor law, especially non-regular workers, it is expected that case law will be born as a new ‘Forming’ in the future.
The case law related to the interests of remedy are intended to protect fixed-term employees from unfair termination of employment, such as unfair dismissal by the employer during the employment contract period. Legal principles on virtually non-fixed term employment contract and expectations right is the case law to protect the employment relationship of fixed-term employees from the termination of employment due to the expiration of the employment contract period or the change of outsourcing company. It can be evaluated that the former legal principle has continued to expand the possibility of employment while being combined with the latter legal principle of expectations right.
Supreme Court’s All-collegial Decision 2019Du52386, decided February 20, 2020 is of great significance in that it paved the way for the practical operation of the dismissal restriction legal principle for dismissal during the employment contract period, and it was the background to the legislation of Art. 30 ④ of the LSA. With this legislation, it can be seen that it has now moved from the area of law-forming action by judges to the area of law-finding. However, the recent Supreme Court precedent seems to contradict this provision.
The legal principles on virtually non-fixed term employment contract is of great significance in that it played a role in the absence of a protective device for the termination of employment of fixed-term employees, and provided the basis for the birth of expectations right. On the other hand, there is a limit to the Judge’s interpretation of denying the explicit contents of the employment contract(employment contract period), which is the source of law(Rechtsquelle).
The right to expect renewal has been expanded to include the right to expect conversion to regular employment, and even the right to expect employment succession when changing outsourcing companies, and has achieved a certain level of completeness in terms of appearance. However, considering that the legal principles regarding the criteria for judging, judgment elements, and rational reasons, etc. for individual expectation rights still require ‘Forming’. And considering that the area where judges’ Law-Forming action is most dynamic is the area related to labor law, especially non-regular workers, it is expected that case law will be born as a new ‘Forming’ in the future.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 글
Ⅱ. 기간제근로자의 고용종료와 해고제한법리의 적용
Ⅲ. 부당해고 등의 구제신청과 원직복직 등이 불가능한 경우의 구제이익
Ⅳ. 사실상 무기계약 법리의 등장과 한계
Ⅴ. 계속 고용 기대권 법리의 전개와 판단구도
Ⅵ. 맺는 글
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
부당해고구제신청의 구제이익과 소의 이익 - 대법원 2020. 2. 20. 선고 2019두52386 전원합의체 판결 -
법학논집
2020 .01
-
사용기간 제한 예외규정과 갱신기대권에 관하여
노동법논총
2015 .12
-
부당해고구제명령의 성격과 재심판정취소소송에서의 소의 이익
행정판례연구
2021 .12
-
근로기준법상 해고 제한 규정의 적용범위* - 헌재 2019. 4. 11. 2017헌마820 결정을 중심으로 -
인권과 정의
2021 .01
-
기간제 근로자의 고용 보장 법리 — 갱신기대권 법리의 검토 —
법학논총
2022 .06
-
미국에서의 해고규제와 해고분쟁의 해결 실태에 관한 고찰
법이론실무연구
2021 .11
-
부당해고에 대한 금전보상제도의 쟁점과 검토
노동법연구
2020 .03
-
해고 제한의 헌법적 근거에 관한 고찰
법학연구
2019 .01
-
부당해고구제명령에 대한 사용자의 소제기에 관한 연구
법과사회
2024 .02
-
원직복직과 해고예고수당
아주법학
2020 .01
-
갱신기대권 법리의 재검토
노동법학
2015 .03
-
근로계약법제의 과제와 전망 : 해고법을 중심으로
저스티스
2017 .02
-
부당해고의 불법행위책임론적 구제법리
법학연구
2022 .02
-
업무저성과 해고의 정당성 판단에 관한 검토 — 대법원 2023.12.28 선고 2021두33470 판결을 중심으로 —
사회법연구
2024 .08
-
이탈리아의 해고구제 방법과 절차
노동법논총
2016 .12
-
기간제근로자에 대한 갱신기대권 법리의 적용에 관한 법적 검토
노동법학
2017 .03
-
기간제법 시행 이후 갱신기대권 법리의 적용 가능성 : 대법원 2016. 11. 10. 선고 2014두45765 판결
노동법연구
2017 .03
-
상시 4인 이하 사업에 대한 부당해고규정 적용제외에 대한 비판적 검토 - 독일에서의 논의를 중심으로 -
산업관계연구
2019 .09
-
기간제법 시행 이후 갱신기대권 법리에 관한 소고
노동법논총
2017 .08
-
해고의 존부 판단의 법적 지위 : 부당해고 구제절차와 재심판정취소의 소를 중심으로
노동법논총
2018 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
‘연령’만을 기준으로 한 노동법상의 규정과 연령에 따른 차별 : 기간제법 상의 고령근로자에 관한 규정을 중심으로
권혁
노동법학
2013
.12
사용자의 갱신거절의 경우 기간제 근로자의 노동법상 보호 : 서울행정법원 2012.7.12. 선고 2011구합31871 판결
김미영
노동법학
2012
.12
기간제법 시행 이후의 기간제 근로계약과 기대권 : 서울고등법원 2011. 8. 18. 선고 2011누9821 판결
최석환
노동법학
2011
.12
정규직 전환 심사를 앞 둔 기간제 근로자의 계약 갱신 기대권 : 서울행정법원 2010. 1. 8. 선고 2009구합23150 판결
도재형
노동법학
2010
.06
기간제 근로계약의 해지에 관한 법적 고찰 : 근로자의 사직과 사용자의 해고를 중심으로
방준식
노동법학
2009
.12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-24-02-088053994