본 판결은 외형상 도급관계에 있는 위장도급에 있어서 하청근로자와 원청기업과의 사이의 근로계약관계의 성립여부에 관하여 다루어진 대법원 판결이다. 본 판결의 의의는 최근 법무부와 노동부가 위장도급(불법파견)을 효과적으로 단속하기 위한 ‘근로자 파견의 판단기준에 관한 지침’을 공동 제정하거나, 대법원이 2008년 7월 2일 구 파견법 제6조 3항 고용의제조항의 의미와 적용범위에 관한 판단에 앞서 공개변론을 여는 등 어느 때보다 이 문제에 관심이 많아지고 있는 상황 속에서 나온 첫 대법원 판결이라는 점에서 그 의의를 찾아 볼 수 있고, 위장도급에 있어서 근로계약관계의 성립여부에 대한 일반적 판단기준인 ‘묵시적 근로계약관계론’을 들어 이를 적극적으로 해석하여 근로계약관계를 인정한 대법원 판결로서 그 가치를 높이 평가할 수 있다. 그러나 원심에서 판단했던 사실관계 가운데 중요하다고 생각되는 집단적 근로관계에 관한 징표들에 대한 판단을 하지 않은 점은 본 판결의 한계라고 할 수 있다.

This Case is a Supreme Court decision involving the issue of whether the formation of work contract relations between a subcontract worker and the original contractor in an disguised outsourcing in the form of subcontracting. The significance of this case is that it is a case of first impression for the Supreme Court decision when this problem comes to attract more interests. For example, recently the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Labor jointly established ‘guidelines on the criterion of the work dispatch’ to effectively supervise the disguised contract (illegal dispatch), and the Supreme Court hold an open proceeding as to where is applied to illegal dispatch in accordance to paragraph 3, article 6 of the ‘Worker Dispatch Act’ on July 2, 2008. In addition, this case is valuable as the Supreme Court decision recognizing the work contract relations, using the theory of ‘implied labor contract’ to determine whether the formation of work contract relations in an disguised outsourcing. However, limit of this judgment at the point is that it does not deal with the Collective Labor Relations issues.

This Case is a Supreme Court decision involving the issue of whether the formation of work contract relations between a subcontract worker and the original contractor in an disguised outsourcing in the form of subcontracting. The significance of this case is that it is a case of first impression for the Supreme Court decision when this problem comes to attract more interests. For example, recently the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Labor jointly established ‘guidelines on the criterion of the work dispatch’ to effectively supervise the disguised contract (illegal dispatch), and the Supreme Court hold an open proceeding as to where is applied to illegal dispatch in accordance to paragraph 3, article 6 of the ‘Worker Dispatch Act’ on July 2, 2008. In addition, this case is valuable as the Supreme Court decision recognizing the work contract relations, using the theory of ‘implied labor contract’ to determine whether the formation of work contract relations in an disguised outsourcing. However, limit of this judgment at the point is that it does not deal with the Collective Labor Relations issues.

Disguised Outsourcing, direct employment, implicit Employment Relationship, indirect employment, illegal dispatch