제정 노동법의 주요내용과 특징― 일본법과의 비교를 중심으로 ―

Abstract

This article aims to reflect on 60 years history of Korean Labour Law with a focus on what were the resemblances and differences between Japanese Labour Law and Korean First Labour Law. It is frequently said that Korean Labour Law is originated from Japanese legal system because of historical backgrounds. Whereas if you look at debates on enactment of Labour Law in the Constitutional National Assembly, there were important differences between them. The main Acts regulating personal employment and collective labour relations were ,so called '4 Labour Acts', Labour Standard Act(LSA), Trade Union Act(TUA), Labour Commission Act(LCA) and Labor Dispute Adjustment Act(LDAA). All these acts were established 1953. These Acts had many similarities to Japanese Labour Law from the point of view on basic structure system and formation. Among these Acts, LSA and LCA had very high similarity than others and TUA had systemic parallel but also the characteristics tried to contribute administration and control to Trade Union. On the last part of this paper, I recommend to attend the one big difference that the First Constitution tried to regulate 'Equal Right to Share Profits in the Private Company'(ERSPPC) in express terms. ERSPPC was the unique fundamental right of workers prescribed by the establishment of the Constitution which is not guaranteed in any other countries. In such a big distinction to Japanese Constitution, the similarity in formation and contents seems to be signified that '4 Labour Acts' in Korea failed to carry out a faithful discharge of the important Constitutional obligation of ERSPPC. This idea is more plain considering the Acts in Japan was far from the standards on International Labour Standards and decentralised nature of the international legal norms. We must deal with the issue of where the responsibility for what was a pros and cons in '4 Labour Acts' The purpose of researching a history of Labour Law is not to celebrate its enactments but to know why there was not the regulation all present and correct. Just as the saying goes, history always repeats itself.