This article contains my opinion about an issue related to compulsion employment by legislation or possibility of compulsion employment by collective contract to limit the freedom on contract. First, the freedom of contract allows anyone to create any legal relationship and it is recognized from the general behavior freedom included in freedom to pursue happiness in Article 10 of the Constitution. According to Paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Constitution, this freedom can be limited for the public welfare unless it is the essential information of this right. The status of the parties of the contract is not equal; therefore, the freedom of employer is limited in many areas. However, as the degree of protection is relatively higher when signing the contract of employment, the compulsion contract only applies in certain exception. Second, the regulation that considers a person as an employee or the article requires compulsion contract on Dispatch Law force employers to create a contract; however, it doesn’t mean that the above regulation or article is violating the freedom of contract based on following reason. In other words, if these regulations guarantees individual’s right based on the worker’s right on the Constitution, it must fulfill the principle of possible direct employment; it is established to protect laborer who disadvantaged from behavior of employers, who exceeded or violated the Dispatch Law. Also, the accompanying burdens of employers are for the employee (laborer) and as it does not fall into the essential part of freedom of employment contract for employers, it can be limited. In addition, the ways to limit of contract freedom or degree of damage doesn’t violate the principle of proportionality. Third, due to the group contract, the regulation that adds obligation to the employer to hire the family members of a partner, that lost job due to the occupational hazards, is valid for following reasons. First, this is an employment issue but it is also an issue related to working condition (welfare) of existing members, and as the employment agreement is to increase the personal asset of employer, we need to focus on the collective bargaining perspective as the employer is not violating the essential part of the employment contract freedom and must recognize its efficacy as the agreement was made by group agreement. Next, the agreement based on this regulation is a restricted decision on employment that falls into employer’s obligation and was formed as post-care obligation perspective for members who lost their job or life from occupational accident so there is a justification and is not violating the social order of Article 103 of the Civil Law Act.

This article contains my opinion about an issue related to compulsion employment by legislation or possibility of compulsion employment by collective contract to limit the freedom on contract. First, the freedom of contract allows anyone to create any legal relationship and it is recognized from the general behavior freedom included in freedom to pursue happiness in Article 10 of the Constitution. According to Paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Constitution, this freedom can be limited for the public welfare unless it is the essential information of this right. The status of the parties of the contract is not equal; therefore, the freedom of employer is limited in many areas. However, as the degree of protection is relatively higher when signing the contract of employment, the compulsion contract only applies in certain exception. Second, the regulation that considers a person as an employee or the article requires compulsion contract on Dispatch Law force employers to create a contract; however, it doesn’t mean that the above regulation or article is violating the freedom of contract based on following reason. In other words, if these regulations guarantees individual’s right based on the worker’s right on the Constitution, it must fulfill the principle of possible direct employment; it is established to protect laborer who disadvantaged from behavior of employers, who exceeded or violated the Dispatch Law. Also, the accompanying burdens of employers are for the employee (laborer) and as it does not fall into the essential part of freedom of employment contract for employers, it can be limited. In addition, the ways to limit of contract freedom or degree of damage doesn’t violate the principle of proportionality. Third, due to the group contract, the regulation that adds obligation to the employer to hire the family members of a partner, that lost job due to the occupational hazards, is valid for following reasons. First, this is an employment issue but it is also an issue related to working condition (welfare) of existing members, and as the employment agreement is to increase the personal asset of employer, we need to focus on the collective bargaining perspective as the employer is not violating the essential part of the employment contract freedom and must recognize its efficacy as the agreement was made by group agreement. Next, the agreement based on this regulation is a restricted decision on employment that falls into employer’s obligation and was formed as post-care obligation perspective for members who lost their job or life from occupational accident so there is a justification and is not violating the social order of Article 103 of the Civil Law Act.

Freedom of Contract, Compulsion Contract, Collective Bargaining, Considered as Employee, Employment Obligation