41 2015 2 Korea Administrative Law Theory Practice Association Administrative Law Journal Vol. 41, Feb. 2015 학교회계직원의사용자에대한고찰및입법정책적검토 사법상권리의무의주체와단체교섭사용자적격의관련성을중심으로 1) 이종범 * ㆍ박동열. ( ),.,. 2013. 1. 15. 201228346.,...,,.,.,.,. * : (),.. ** : ().
246 19.. :,,,,,... - -... 서론 1), 2012. 2) 3), ( )., 4) 5), 1).,,,. 2) ( ) 142 1 29 1 292 1 3.. 2012. 3) ( 121, 18 ).
247 6), 7) 8)., 9) ( ),., 10). 2012. 8. 24. 11), 2013. 1. 15. 12),. 13), 4) 2007. 7. 24. 20072777 : 2005. 1. 12.,. 5), (2012. 7. 30). 6) 2007. 1. 23. 2007 21602 : 2007. 7. 24. 20072777.. 7) ( 2006. 12. 20. 2006178 ). 8) 2012. 7. 26. 201222 (,, ); 2012. 7. 31. 201223 (,, ); 2012. 8. 3. 201224 (, ); 2012. 8. 3. 201225 (,, ); 2012. 8. 3. 201226 (, ); 2012. 8. 6. 201227 (,, ); 2012. 8. 6. 2012 28 (,, ). 9),,. 10) 8. 11),,,,.,,,,,,,,,. 12) 2013. 1. 15. 201228346. 13) 2013. 9. 26. 2013 5410 ; 2014. 2. 13. 2013 22666 ( ).
248.... 학교운영의특수성및이에비추어본사용자인정의문제 (1) 단위학교자율책임경영,.. 14). 15),,,,. (2) 학교회계와학교회계직원의개념 1) 2001 16) ( ) 14) (,, (2007. 2), 14 ). 15),, 16 (School-Based Management; SBM),. 16) 2000. 1. 28. 6209 302, 303..,,,
249 ()..,,.,,,.,...,,. 2), 17). 18), ( ).,. 19). (,, (2009. 12), 1-2 ). (, 2 )., 13-18. 17),, 31 (2011. 9), 266. 18) (1952 -), (1963 -), (1970 -), (1995 -).,, 2001..,. 19) 2007. 7. 24. 20072777.
250 2007. 7. 24. 20072777. 20) 2013. 1. 15. 201228346. 21) ( ),, 22),. ( ). ( 2013. 1. 15. 201228346..). [ ],.,. [ ],,,,.,,,.. [ ],., 20), 2008. 1. 23. ( 2008. 1. 23. 2007 21602 ),. 21) 2013. 1. 15. 201228346 : 2 2. 22) 2, 18, 32, 3.
251,. [ ],.,..,... 단체교섭의사용자와사법상권리의무의주체 - 학교회계직원을중심으로 - (1) 단체교섭의당사자로서의사용자의개념표지 23) 29, 2 2 24),. 25), 23),,,,., ( ), 14 2 (2014. 6). 24) ( 1998. 2. 27. 9413 ). 25) ( 2 1 2 )...
252. 26) 27).,,,,. 28) (fremde Bestimmtheit) (Weisungsrecht). 29),, ( ). 30)..,,. (2) 교섭단위와교섭당사자의준별필요성 2013. 1. 15. 201228346,..., 31) ( ).,, 3. 26),?, 24 (2008. 3), 15. 27),, 2014, 164. 28),, 4. 29), 4. 30), 11. 31) 293 2.
253.,., 32),.. (3) 지방자치단체와근로계약관계의존부및단체교섭에담당자문제. 33)., 2013. 1. 15. 201228346... ( ),.,.,.. ( ),. 34), 32). 33),, 12.
254. (4) 직업상담원판결및그취지 2008. 9. 11. 2006 40935 ( 35) ).,.,, 2 2., 36). 37) 34),.,, 31 (2010). 35) ( 44 1 ),, ( 12 2 ). 36) 1995. 12. 22. 95 3565. 37).. 2013. 1. 15. 2012 28346..,,,,, 4,
255.,. 38)39)40) ( ). (5) 사법상권리의무의주체가아니어도사용자성을인정한판례. 41) 42). 2013. 1. 15. 201228346. 12, ( ) 38),. 39).,,,. (,, 109 (2009. 2), 280 ). 40),. ( 81 3 ), 2007. 7. 24. 20072777 (,, 2008. 4). 41) ( 1991. 4. 23. 91 4478 ).
256. 43),, 15 44). 45). 46) 47), 48). (6) 노동조합법및근로기준법의규정 42) 1999. 7. 12. 99 628.,,,. 43). 1980. 11. 11. 80 1070 : 15. 44) (1986. 12. 31. 3927 ) 15... 45) 1986. 7. 8. 86 722. 46). 47) 1997. 8. 26. 96 31079 :,,,,,,. 48),,.
257. 35.,..,. (7) 사업장의개념에관한타법률의규정.. 49),. 50),. 51).,.,,. 52)53) (8) 사법상권리의무의주체와공법상권리의무의주체의준별 49) 3 3. 50) 3 13. 51) 2 4. 52) A,, A. 53) ( ) (,, 2008. 12, 39 ),,,, ( (1990. 9. 26, 01254-13559))..
258 ( )., 54),.... 55)56),.,,. 57) 54) 2013. 1. 15. 201228346. 55) 2013. 7. 25. 2011 1214 ( ) ( ),,,,.,. 56) 2010. 12. 9. 2009 38963,, 30 (2011. 8), 199-201 ;,,, 2013. 9. 23. :. 57) 2012. 7. 30.,,,, (, (2012. 7. 30)).
259 (9) 정리..,.,. 20.,. 27,., ( ). 20 1, 302 1, 303. 58),,. 59). 60) 22 1, 42 2, 3 2013. 1. 15. 201228346, 2013. 7. 25. 2011 1214. 58) 303 4 1,. 59) 302 2. 60) 15 1.
260,.,, 4,.,,,,,,.,.,. (1) 학교규칙의제 개정권한 2012. 3. 21. 11384 8. (2012. 3. 21. 11384 ), 61).,.,. (2) 단체교섭의당사자인노동조합과의비교 61) 2008. 4. 3..,.
261,. 62) 63),. 64) (3) 노동조합법의규정 29, 2 3.., 65). (4) 단체교섭의당사자와노동조합법상수범자의불일치, ( ). 2013. 1. 15. 201228346,. 62) 6 1... 63) ( 2007. 3. 30. 2004 8333 ). ( 2008. 8. 27. 2007522 ; 2011. 12. 9. 2011722 ). 64) 2013. 1. 15. 201228346,. 65),. (,, 2013. 2, 168 ),,. (, 168 ).
262.... 66),.,,. (5) 사용자개념의확대필요성에의역행. 67).. 68) 66) 1986. 7. 8. 86 722. 67),.,.,. (,, Vol. 5, No. 11(2007. 11), 75 ). ( ) 3 (),. 2013. 1. 15. 201228346,. 68),, 49 (2014. 3) ( 243-248 ).
263,,. 69). 70) (6) 실증적문제 71)...,. 3-21, 3-8. 20, 40. 20-35,, (, ), 57 ( ), 60 ( ). 72) 37, 36, 38, 33, 38, 38, 38, 36, 38, 37, 38, 37, 35, 39, 37, 37, 34. 73) 69) 1999. 11. 12. 97 19946. 70) 2013. 1. 15. 201228346,. 71) 3,568/20,512, 1,380/8,533, 4,291/34,448 13%(18,927/140,989) (, 2014 (2014. 7), 142 ). 72), (2011. 11), 12. 73) 71, 60-67.
264.,,,,. ( ),,..... 학교회계직원에대한법률안제정논의에대한검토.,. 2013. 1. 15. 201228346, ( ),. 74) ( ).. 74),. 1990. 4. 7. 4226..
265 (1) 학교회계직원에대한법률안 19. ( ).. < 75) >,,, ( 4 ). 76) < 77) >,,,, ( 5 ). 78) (1990. 4. 7. 4226 ) 702 ( ) 702 ( ).. 75) 1905012, ( 26 ), 2013. 5. 20.. 76) (http://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/jsp/billdetail.jsp?bill_id=prc_p1h3m0z5f2e0x1x7h5n8x1v 4L4U3T6, : 2015. 1. 12). 77) 1902259, ( 40 ), 2012. 10. 23.. 78) (http://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/jsp/billdetail.jsp?bill_id=prc_f1x2c1z0p2r3p1m1d2j0u2i0 N1P5H6, : 2015. 1. 12).
266 (2) 논의되고있는법률안에대한비판적고찰 79),. 80),. 81),.. -, -.,. 82),.. 2013. 1. 15. 201228346... 83) 79) 316 () 1, 2013. 6. 24, 20. 80) 195012, ( 26 ), (http://likms.ass embly.go.kr/bill/jsp/billdetail.jsp?bill_id=prc_p1h3m0z5f2e0x1x7h5n8x1v4l4u3t6, : 201 5. 1. 12). 81),. 1,000 9,000. 82), 2014. 11. 21. (http://www.moe.go.kr/web/100026/ko/board/view.do?bbsid=294&pagesize=1 0¤tPage=7&encodeYn=Y&boardSeq=57648&mode=view, : 2015. 1. 12) 2. 83)...,, 2014. 11. 21. (http://www.yonhapnew
267, (, ) 84),, ( ).. 결론, 2013. 1. 15. 201228346.,,.,.,,. 85). 86),.,.. 19. s.co.kr/bulletin/2014/11/21/0200000000akr20141121062800004.html?input=1195m, : 2015. 2. 24). 84), 2014 (2014. 1). 85) 2013. 7. 25. 2011 1214. 86),, 2013. 9. 23..
268,.. ( : 2015. 1. 13. : 2015. 2. 26. : 2015. 2. 26.)
269 참고문헌,, 2013. 2.,, 2008. 12.,, 2014.,, 2008. 4.,?, 24 (2008. 3).,, (2007. 2).,, (2009. 12).,, 31 (2011. 9)., ( ), 14 2 (2014. 6).,, 31 (2010).,, 30 (2011. 8).,, Vol. 5, No. 11(2007. 11).,, 49 (2014. 3).,, 109 (2009. 2).,,, 2013. 9. 23.., (2011. 11)., 2014 (2014. 7)., 2014 (2014. 1)., 2014. 11. 21....,, 2014. 11. 21.., (2012. 7. 30). 316 () 1, 2013. 6. 24. (1990. 9. 26, 01254-13559).
270 <Abstract> 87) Controversies regarding the employers of official school workers Jongbum Lee * Dongyeol Park ** There has been a lot of different opinions on determining who the employer of official school workers is, but it seems that the recent ruling by Seoul Administrative Court has settled such controversies to a certain extent. Fundamentally, it should not be compared uniformly at the same level that the aforementioned issue that requires to be subjects of rights and duties respectively under private laws and public laws. From such perspective, the Supreme Court prospectively changed its existing ruling and acknowledged that even a government authority can be considered to have legal capacity under public legal relationships in each individual, specific case. It can cause various problems in working practices that the recent Seoul Administration Court ruling recognizes an employer status only if the employer can be subjects of rights and duties under private laws. The requirement for an employer to have legal capacity under private laws not only breaches the purpose of legislation to envisage authority to execute collective bargaining in the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, but also is against the provisions of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Furthermore, the additional requirements imposed by the recent Seoul Administration Court can not only be against the trends to expand the scope of definition of employer, but also may hinder effective execution of collective bargaining. Key Words: contingent workers at primary and secondary schools, official school workers, non-standard workers, collective bargaining, employer, corporate entity, school settlement accounting * Attorney at Law, Barun Law LLC. ** Attorney at Law, Barun Law LLC.