초록 열기/닫기 버튼
Both the Netherlands and South Korea have statutory severance pay that is similar in form(ula) but differs in purpose. Dutch severance pay originated as compensation for unfair dismissal calculated by a judge on a case-by-case basis. This became more standardized, resulting in a formula that is nearly identical to Korea’s, although the reason for termination is still a factor in Dutch severance pay. While the Netherlands has been standardizing severance pay, Korea has been trying to replace it with a retirement pension plan system. The reason why one jurisdiction tries to abolish an institution that another jurisdiction is developing lies in severance pay’s perceived purpose. Dutch severance pay has originally been conceptualized as dismissal protection. Korean severance pay has been instituted in the 1960s as a substitute for retirement benefits. This research argues that instead of its social function the perceived purpose of severance pay – what it ought to do – has been leading in the reform debate. The central question this research tries to answer is, therefore, how severance pay’s perceived purpose has influenced its development in the Netherlands and South Korea. This is an important question because the initial choice for a certain policy (change) causes intellectual path dependence. After giving a functional definition of severance pay, this paper compares severance pay law in Korea and the Netherlands based on an analysis of its historical development. It concludes that the perceived purpose was one major factor limiting the way legal scholars and policymakers approached the reform debate, especially when it came to the choice for alternatives to consider and legal systems to compare.
