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
강선희 (고려대학교)
저널정보
한국노동법학회 노동법학 노동법학 제87호
발행연도
2023.9
수록면
259 - 301 (43page)
DOI
10.69596/JLL.2023.09.87.259

이용수

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

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.

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 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) : I410-151-24-02-088053994