사업주의 안전배려의무의 사정(射程)범위에 관한 소고

• 영문명: A Study on the Range of Safety Care Obligation of Employers
• 발행기관: 충북대학교 법학연구소
• 저자명: 김병옥(Kim, Byeong Ok)
• 간행물 정보: 『법학연구』第28卷 第2號, 163~212쪽, 전체 50쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2017.12.30

영문 초록

The safety care obligation in Korea is recognized by theory and precedent without being stipulated in the Civil Act and etc. Also, because the safety care obligation of company owners has been discussed focusing on the claim for damages based on the aggressive contract infringement of the article 39 of the Civil Act until now, there has not been specific legal development on the legal requirements and their contents for the recognition of the right to demand adequate measures or to refuse hazardous work that enables to ask employers to improve the risk situation before industrial injuries occur, other than the discussion by some labor law scholars. In Germany, the article 618 of BGB stipulates that the duty of safety care of employers is recognized. In the view of the fact providing labour cannot be separated from the personality of employee, safety care obligation has a significant meaning in the labor contract. If an employer does not fulfil the obligation, workers are entitled to the right to demand adequate measures and the right to refuse hazardous work other than the right to claim for damages. According to many precedents and theories, safety care obligation is understood as additional duty or protection obligation. The Act on the industrial safety and health has meaning of public law in the scope to impose obligations on employers. And also the Act has meaning of private law in terms of supplementing and specifying the contents of safety care obligation of employers. In Japan, since safety care obligation was clearly defined and constituted as default liability by the judgement of Supreme Court in February 5, 1975, it has been settled by precedents and theories. The definition of the obligation can be said to generalize safety care obligation by combining safety care obligation and protection duty in Germany. The safety care obligation was clearly stipulated in the article 5 of Labor Contract Act in effect since March 2008. If an employer does not carry out the obligations, workers are entitled to claiming damages, demanding adequate measures and refusing to provide labor. The articles in the Labor Safety and Health Act has meaning of public law in the scope to impose employers on obligations, and also it has meaning of private law in terms of supplementing and specifying the contents of safety care obligation of employers. In Korea, considering that industrial injuries are very important to workers, the safety care obligation of employers should be clearly stipulated. And the contents of safety care obligation should be enlarged from the improvement of physical and human environment to the physical and mental health care of workers. Furthermore, if the employers do not fulfill safety care obligation, it is necessary to recognize the right of demanding adequate measures and refusing to provide labor for workers in the aspect of prevention of industrial injuries. By doing this, it is considered that safety care obligation of employers can play an important role to protect workers from the risk of industrial injuries. But considering the reality of labor relations in Korea, the system should be designed so that labor unions can refrain from abusing these rights, in terms of fairness and faithfulness.

목차

Ⅰ. 들어가며

Ⅱ. 우리나라에서의 사업주의 안전배려의무

Ⅲ. 외국의 입법례

Ⅳ. 안전배려의무의 법적 성질과 사정범위 검토

Ⅴ. 마치며

키워드

안전배려의무 채무불이행책임 이행청구권 작업거절권 손해배상청구권 safety care obligation right to demand adequate measures right to refuse hazardous work default liability right to claim for damages