인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록·키워드
Supreme court decided that business suspension allowance is a kind of wage October 11. 2013 before the decision of Supreme court December 18.2013 〔Severance pay〕.
I think that business suspension allowance is not a kind of wage. So I want to analyze the former decision of Supreme Court was wrong. I tried to prove business suspension allowance is the nature of employer’s assistance for employee because employee did not provide his own’s labor to the employer, so business suspension allowance the employee was given did not relate to the provision of employee’s labor.
If the decision of Supreme Court, October 11. 2013, continue in effect, this will greatly have affection to judge whether many kinds of allowance are wage or not, for decision of Supreme court December 18. 2013 decided that if the employee continuously and periodically receive a kind of allowance, this has the nature of wage without consideration about the name of allowance.
We will guess that the contribution of social security paid for the employee by the employer also has the nature of wage, for the employer continuously and periodically pays it for the employee and the contribution of social security has the nature of employer’s assistance like business suspension allowance.
To study this view more, I did the nature of social insurance premium in France and compared social insurance premium in Korea with that in France. In France social insurance premium dose not have the nature of wage like in Korea and business suspension allowance has the nature of employee’s damage.
I think that the decision of Supreme Court, October 11. 2013 is the exceptional judgement based on the consideration of special situation for the protection of employee with ignoring the theory of wage.
I think that business suspension allowance is not a kind of wage. So I want to analyze the former decision of Supreme Court was wrong. I tried to prove business suspension allowance is the nature of employer’s assistance for employee because employee did not provide his own’s labor to the employer, so business suspension allowance the employee was given did not relate to the provision of employee’s labor.
If the decision of Supreme Court, October 11. 2013, continue in effect, this will greatly have affection to judge whether many kinds of allowance are wage or not, for decision of Supreme court December 18. 2013 decided that if the employee continuously and periodically receive a kind of allowance, this has the nature of wage without consideration about the name of allowance.
We will guess that the contribution of social security paid for the employee by the employer also has the nature of wage, for the employer continuously and periodically pays it for the employee and the contribution of social security has the nature of employer’s assistance like business suspension allowance.
To study this view more, I did the nature of social insurance premium in France and compared social insurance premium in Korea with that in France. In France social insurance premium dose not have the nature of wage like in Korea and business suspension allowance has the nature of employee’s damage.
I think that the decision of Supreme Court, October 11. 2013 is the exceptional judgement based on the consideration of special situation for the protection of employee with ignoring the theory of wage.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-330-002747735
