Earticle

초록

영어

December 18, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled the problem for the concept and scope of the normal wage which has been controversial for ordinary wage. It is thought to be effective to reduce the clutter of the on-site labor. But, the Supreme Court mentioned “The labor- management agreement for the range of normal wage is no effect to both parties to legal actions because of violations of mandatory rules. But the workers claims for additional wage may be not allowed in accordance with the principle of good faith.”On the one hand, I was surprised about that limits the legal rights of workers by applying the principle of good faith in a legal action for violation of mandatory rules. On the other hand, That surprised me even more is to apply the principle of good faith called the general provisions to limits of the rights of workers in the labor law area that modified civil law principles. Meanwhile, in the labor area, the judgment applied the principle of good faith exist but, I thought it would always be ‘exceptional’. But, I can only think that it can be applied at any time and any situation if there exists situational specificity. Personally, I think it logical and reasonable that the court allowed to claims of additional benefits for workers because he labor-management agreement for the range of normal wage is no effect to both parties to legal actions. I think that the court need to wait for legislative action in Congress before making a decision.

목차

Ⅰ. 들어가며
 Ⅱ. 통상임금 범위에 대한 노사간 합의의 강행규정 위반성
 Ⅲ. 신의성실의 원칙 적용과 추가임금 청구의 제한
 Ⅳ. 나오며
 참고문헌
 Abstract

키워드

통상임금 정기상여금 신의칙 신의성실의 원칙 실효의 원칙 강행법규 노사합의 갑을오토텍사건 normal wages regular bonuses principle of good faith mandatory law imperative law labor agreements

저자

• 김성권 [ Kim, Seong Kwon | 경북대학교 강사, 법학박사, 공인노무사. ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물