logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2007. 11. 15. 선고 2006다72567 판결
[대여금][미간행]
Main Issues

[1] Standard for determining the governing law of a labor contract to which the former Conflict of Laws applies

[2] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the law applicable to the validity of the employment contract is a Japanese law in consideration of the fact that the employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant of Korean nationality was concluded in Japan and the place of the provision of labor is located in Japan

[3] The case holding that where an employee of the Republic of Korea's nationality entered into an agreement with the Korean nationality business owner to deduct a certain amount from a monthly wage and to repay the credit payment obligations on behalf of the customer in the event of absence, dismissal, or non-performance of the obligation to accompany a customer while employed in the main shop located in Japan, such agreement is null and void in violation of Article 16 of the Labor Standards Act of Japan

[Reference Provisions]

[1] Article 9 (see Articles 25 and 28 of the current Private International Act) of the former Conflict of Laws (amended by Act No. 6465 of April 7, 2001) / [2] Articles 9 (see Articles 25 and 28 of the current Private International Act) of the former Conflict of Laws (amended by Act No. 6465 of April 7, 2001) / [3] Articles 9 (see Articles 25 and 28 of the current Private International Act) of the former Conflict of Laws (amended by Act No. 6465 of April 7, 200)

Reference Cases

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da56130, 56147 decided June 25, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1230)

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Blst, Attorneys Park Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Na9789 Decided September 21, 2006

Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below rejected the defendants' assertion that "The monetary transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant 1" provided money to the defendant 1 as a means of inducing and coercing the plaintiff to engage in sexual traffic against the customers at the above main point, and thus the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 arising from the above monetary transaction against the defendant 1 is null and void because it violates good morals and other social order. Thus, the money that the plaintiff provided to the defendant 1 constitutes illegal consideration and thus it cannot be claimed as return by the plaintiff, and the guarantee agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 is null and void." In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, as

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Factual relations

원심이 적법하게 확정한 사실 및 기록에 의하면, 피고 1은 1998. 11. 8. 원고가 일본에서 운영하는 ‘썸씽’이라는 상호의 주점에 취업하면서 원고로부터 일화 150만 엔을 차용하였고, 이 때 피고 2는 원고에 대하여 피고 1이 위 주점에서 근무하는 동안에 원고에 대하여 부담하게 되는 차용금, 가불금 등 일체의 채무를 일화 150만 엔의 한도 내에서 연대보증한 사실, 피고 1은 원고와, 결근이나 지각시 및 손님을 동반하여 올 의무를 이행하지 못할시 등에는 월 급여에서 일정한 약정금액을 공제하고 손님의 외상주대채무를 대신 변제하기로 하는 등의 약정(이하, ‘이 사건 약정’이라 한다)을 하였고, 이에 따라 원고는 피고 1에게 월 급여를 지급함에 있어서 결근이나 지각시, 동반의무 불이행시 등의 약정금액, 손님의 외상주대, 급여가불금액, 위 차용금채무의 일부변제금 등을 공제한 나머지 금액만을 지급하고, 월급여가 이를 공제하기에 부족한 경우에는 이를 피고 1의 채무에 산입한 사실, 피고 1은 2000. 6. 13. 원고와의 사이에, 당시 자신의 채무액이 2,800만 원(일화 280만 엔)임을 확인하고, 원고에게 위 2,800만 원의 채무를 2001. 6. 13.까지 변제하기로 하는 내용의 차용증(갑 제3호증)을 작성하여 준 사실, 그 후 피고 1은 2001. 6.경 위 주점을 그만둔 사실 등을 알 수 있다.

(b) Applicable law;

In this case where the plaintiff of Korean nationality and defendant 1 concluded a labor contract with the contents of labor provision in Japan's main office located in Japan, and the invalidity of the contract of this case that is the contents of the labor contract constitutes a legal relationship with foreign elements, the applicable law should be first determined. Since this case is a matter arising prior to the enforcement of the Private International Act which was revised by Act No. 6465 of April 17, 2001 and enforced from July 1, 2001, the applicable law should be determined by the former Conflict of Laws Act.

Article 9 of the former Conflict of Laws provides that the law shall be applied to the establishment and validity of a juristic act by the parties' intent, and when the parties' intent is not clear, the law shall be applied to the place of the act. In the absence of an express agreement between the parties on the choice of the governing law, the parties' implied intent shall be presumed based on the contents of declaration of intent other than the governing law included in a labor contract, the attitude of the parties expressed through the litigation, etc. In the absence of such implied intent, even if such implied intent cannot be presumed, the parties' nationality, domicile, etc., the place of living, including the parties' nationality, domicile, the governing law of the juristic person which is the employer, the governing law of the establishment of the juristic person, the place of labor payment, and the contents of the labor contract, shall be presumed to have been selected by the parties at the time of the labor contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da56130, 56147, June 25, 2004)

In light of the above legal principles, in this case where there is no express provision on the governing law in the labor contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1, the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 both have Korean nationality, but considering that the labor contract was concluded in Japan, the workplace where the labor contract was provided is located in Japan, and the parties’ reasonable intent, it is reasonable to view that the governing law on the validity of the labor contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 is a Japanese law.

C. Effect of the instant agreement

Article 16 of the Labor Standards Act of Japan provides that "An employer shall not determine a penalty for non-performance of a labor contract or conclude a contract which provides for liquidated damages." The purport of this Act is that if an employee pays a penalty or damages even if he/she did not receive any consideration in the event that he/she did not perform a labor contract, he/she shall not escape from the detention of the labor contract even if he/she entered into an unfavorable labor contract. Thus, by prohibiting the above agreement on liquidated damages or liquidated damages, the employee shall be prevented from being forced to continue his/her work under the restriction on the freedom of retirement, guaranteeing the freedom of workers at the time of entering into a labor contract, and protecting the termination of an unfavorable labor contract. Therefore, the agreement in violation of Article 16 of the above Labor Standards Act shall be deemed null and void. Thus, the agreement in this case shall be deemed null and void, after deducting a fixed agreed amount from monthly wages in cases where Defendant 1 did not perform his/her duties, and if Defendant 1’s customer did not pay the credit payment obligation on behalf of the employer, it constitutes actual invalidity of the penalty or liquidated damages.

D. Whether the Defendants’ obligations against the Plaintiff exist

According to the records, the plaintiff is aware that the sum of the sum of Defendant 1's monthly salary deduction or the sum of the amounts included in Defendant 1's debt 2,295,000 UN on credit for customers, fines of 1,069,000 UN on absence, fines of 1,129,000N on absence, and fines of 1,73,000 UN on the part of non-performance of accompanying obligation is 4,73,000 UN. As long as the agreement of this case is null and void, the above sum should be deemed to have been appropriated for Defendant 1's repayment of debt to the plaintiff. As seen above, on the premise that the agreement of this case is valid on June 13, 200, the above sum should be deemed to have been extinguished by the agreement of this case on June 13, 20, and the amount of debt 200,000 UN on June 13, 200.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the claims against the Defendants asserted by the Plaintiff were extinguished or nonexistent. The court below did not determine the Defendants’ assertion that the agreement in this case is null and void, but accepted all of the Plaintiff’s claims in this case on June 13, 2000 on the ground that the agreement in this case and Defendant 1’s expression of intent to bear the obligation on June 13, 2000 were valid. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the agreement as to penalty for breach of labor contract or liquidated damages for breach of labor contract, and in omission of judgment as to the Defendants’ above assertion, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
- 서울남부지방법원 2006.9.21.선고 2005나9789

평석

- 한국인 간에 일본에서 체결될 근로계약의 준거법 석광현 博英社

관련문헌

- 김창권 직무발명에 기하여 종업원에 의하여 외국에서 등록되는 특허권 등에 대한 사용자의 통상실시권 대법원판례해설 제104호 / 법원도서관 2015

- 장준혁 준거법에 관한 국제사법의 2001년 개정과 후속 판례의 회고 국제사법연구 제20권 제1호 / 한국국제사법학회 2014

- 송인호 탈북 브러커 계약의 효력에 대한 고찰 인권과 정의 423호 / 대한변호사협회 2011

- 석광현 국제근로계약의 준거법에 관한 한국과 중국국제사법의 이동 법학연구 31집 / 전북대학교 출판부 2010

- 김영기 탈북 용역 계약에 관한 주요 쟁점과 실무례 통일과 법률 통권22호 / 2015

- 권창영 국제근로계약에 관한 국제재판관할 노동법실무연구 . 제1권 : 김지형 대법관 퇴임기념 제1권 / 사법발전재단 2011

- 석광현 한국인 간에 일본에서 체결될 근로계약의 준거법 민사판례연구 31권 / 박영사 2009

- 임혜원 성매매 관련 대가에 관한 민 · 형사상 몇 가지 문제 우리법연구회 논문집. 제7집 [2/2]:. 2010-2017 / 우리법연구회 2017

참조판례

- [1] 대법원 2004. 6. 25. 선고 2002다56130, 56147 판결

참조조문

- [1] 섭외사법(구) 제9조

- 국제사법 제25조

- 국제사법 제28조

- [2] 섭외사법(구) 제9조

- 국제사법 제25조

- 국제사법 제28조

- [3] 섭외사법(구) 제9조

- 국제사법 제25조

- 국제사법 제28조

본문참조판례

대법원 2004. 6. 25. 선고 2002다56130, 56147 판결

본문참조조문

- 섭외사법(구) 제9조

원심판결

- 서울남부지법 2006. 9. 21. 선고 2005나9789 판결