earticle

영어

‘Transfer’ means that the employee maintains a working relationship with the employer (“original employer”), who is the other party to the labor contract, exempts the employee from the duty to provide labor in accordance with dispositions such as leave, long‐term business trip, dispatch, and outside work, moves to another company and engage in the business of that company for a considerable period of time under the direction and supervision of another employer (“transfer employer”), and when the transfer period expires, he/she returns to the original employer. It is mainly used for manpower exchange, career development, business support, technical support, and other manpower supply and demand among affiliates within a large corporate group. On the other hand, ‘employee dispatch’ means that the employee receives the command‐order of the ‘user company’ and engages in work for the user company according to the contents of the employee dispatch contract, as the ‘temporary work agency’ hires an employee and then maintains the employment relationship. It is similar to ‘transfer’ in that ‘employment’ and ‘use’ are separated. However, ‘transfer’ is different from ‘employee dispatch’ under the Act on The Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (hereinafter referred to as the “Dispatch Act”), which aims at dispatching employees itself, and its roles in the labor market are clearly distinct. The biggest difference is that when the dispatch period ends, the dispatched employee will be placed in a state of job insecurity until he/she is dispatched again and provides labor services, but because transfer employees are naturally scheduled to return to their original employer when the transfer is over, there is no problem of job insecurity. This means that the necessity of special protection for dispatched employees is difficult to be recognized in ‘transfer’. The subject case was about whether to apply the protections under the Dispatch Act, such as the duty to hire, as the customary ‘transfer’ between affiliates is considered an ‘employee dispatch’ under the Dispatch Act. According to the court of first instance, the ‘transfer’ in this case is a normal ‘transfer’ between affiliates, and as the defendant had never paid a separate fee, it was judged that the dispatch could not be regarded as a business dispatch subject to the discipline of the Dispatch Act. On the other hand, the second instance court held that the transfer of this case actually amounted to ‘employee dispatch’. Furthermore, considering the fact that there was a continuous‐repeated ‘transfer’, and that the defendant (transferred employee) obtained certain economic benefits compared to direct employment, since it cannot be said that there was no profit‐sales at all, it was judged that this fell under the ‘employee dispatch business’, which is a subject of the Dispatch Act. However, the decision of the second instance court reserves the following problems. First, there is a concern that even ‘transfer’ between general affiliates will be judged as employee dispatch. Second, the dispatch law should be viewed as applying only to ‘business dispatch’. Third, profitability and business feasibility are essential elements of the employee dispatch business, they should be judged based on the temporary work agency who conducts the employee dispatch business. Fourth, it is unreasonable to admit the continuity and repetition of the employee dispatch business just by the fact that a large number of workers have been transferred.

한국어

본고에서 검토한 사안은 계열회사 간 관행적으로 행해지는 ‘전출’을 ｢파견근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률｣(이하 ‘파견법’이라 한다)상 ‘근로자파견’ 으로 보아 직접 고용의무 등 파견법상의 보호를 적용할 것인가에 관한 것이다. 1심 법원은 이 사건 ‘전출’이 계열사 간 통상의 ‘전출’이고, 피고 가 별도 수수료 등을 지급한 바도 없어 파견법의 규율대상인 ‘사업적 파 견’으로 볼 수 없다고 판단하였다. 반면 2심 법원은 이 사건 전출은 실 질적으로 ‘근로자파견’에 해당된다고 보았다. 나아가 계속적･반복적으로 ‘전출’이 이루어졌고, 피고(전출사용자)가 직접 고용 시에 비해 일정한 경제적 이익을 얻은 점 등을 고려할 때 영리성･영업성이 전혀 없다고도 할 수도 없다면서 파견법의 규율대상인 ‘근로자파견사업’에 해당된다고 판단하였다. 본고에서는 이러한 엇갈린 법원 판결 중 특히 2심 판결을 중심으로 결론과 논거의 문제점을 비판적으로 검토하였다. 결론적으로 파견법상 ‘근로자파견’은 근로자파견을 ‘업’으로 하는 경 우, 즉 ‘사업적 파견’만을 규율대상으로 하며, 기업집단(계열사) 내에서 사업상 필요와 인력활용의 효율성 등을 목적으로 이루어지는 ‘전출’에는 적용되지 않는다고 보는 것이 합리적이라 생각된다. 파견법의 규율을 받 는 근로자파견사업에 해당하는지 여부는 파견 등 행위의 반복･계속성, 영업성･영리성의 유무, 근로자파견의 목적 등을 종합적으로 고려해 판 단하여야 하는데, 2심 법원이 (ⅰ) ‘근로자파견사업’의 본질적 요소인 영 리성･영업성을 반드시 요구되는 것이 아니라고 본 점, (ⅱ) 영리성･영업성 등은 파견사업을 영위하는 주체인 파견사업주(원사용자)를 기준으로 판단하여야 함에도 이를 사용사업주(전출사용자)를 기준으로 판단한 점, (ⅲ) 원사용자와 전출사업자의 사업목적이나 고용목적, 파견법의 입법취 지와 파견근로자에 대한 보호 필요성 등을 고려하지 않고 단순히 다수의 근로자가 전출되었다는 점 등을 들어 근로자파견의 계속성･반복성을 인정한 것은 문제가 있다고 생각된다. 이러한 관점에서 최근 대법원(상고심)도 계열사 간 전출은 기업집단의 사업상 필요와 인력활용의 효율성 등을 고려하여 이루어지는 것으로, 전 출에 있어 원 소속 기업은 근로자파견을 ‘업’으로 하는 경우가 아니므로 파견법의 적용 대상인 근로자파견으로 볼 수 없다고 본 것은 타당한 결론이라고 생각된다.