Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Direct employment claim extinguished by a rehabilitation commencement order
Supreme Court, Apr. 27, 2023, 2021Da213477 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 근로에관한소송
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a commencement of rehabilitation proceedings against the user company extinguish a dispatched worker's direct employment claim arising before that order, may the worker exercise a newly arising claim once the rehabilitation ends, and what must the court below do when the user company disputes the claim on that basis?
Holding
Yes. Under Article 6-2(2) of the former Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, no direct employment claim arises after the commencement order, and a claim that arose earlier is extinguished by it, but once the rehabilitation ends the worker may exercise a claim arising from that point. Because the user company disputed the claim on the ground that it arose before the order, the court below had to exercise its power to clarify under Article 136(1) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Act and decide whether the claim had been extinguished. The wage-discrimination claim against the administrator, being a claim for a new tort committed day by day, is a public interest claim under Article 179(1)(v) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.
Points at issue, verbatim
사용사업주에 대한 회생절차개시결정이 있는 경우, 회생절차개시결정 전에 발생한 파견근로자의 직접고용청구권이 소멸하는지 여부(적극) 및 파견근로자는 사용사업주의 회생절차가 종결되면 그때부터 새로 발생한 직접고용청구권을 행사할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where an order commencing rehabilitation proceedings has been rendered with respect to the user company, the dispatched worker's right to claim direct employment arising before the order commencing rehabilitation proceedings is extinguished (affirmative), and whether the dispatched worker may, once the user company's rehabilitation proceedings are concluded, exercise the right to claim direct employment newly arising from that time (affirmative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 고용의 의사표시 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 춘천지방법원 강릉지원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed with respect to the claim for a declaration of intent to employ, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gangneung Branch of the Chuncheon District Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이때 합리적인 이유가 없는 경우라 함은, 파견근로자를 달리 처우할 필요성이 인정되지 아니하거나, 달리 처우할 필요성이 인정되더라도 그 방법·정도 등이 적정하지 아니한 경우를 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
In this case, "where there is no reasonable ground" means a case where the necessity of treating the dispatched worker differently is not recognized, or where, even if the necessity of treating the dispatched worker differently is recognized, the method, extent, etc. of that treatment is not appropriate.
Factors
- 사용사업주에 대한 회생절차개시결정이 있는 경우, 회생절차개시결정 전에 발생한 파견근로자의 직접고용청구권이 소멸하는지 여부(적극)
- 파견근로자는 사용사업주의 회생절차가 종결되면 그때부터 새로 발생한 직접고용청구권을 행사할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
- 사용사업주가 파견근로자와 비교대상 근로자가 같은 종류의 업무 또는 유사한 업무를 수행하고 있음을 알았거나 알 수 있었는데도 파견근로자의 임금을 결정하는 데 관여하거나 영향력을 행사하는 등으로 파견근로자가 비교대상 근로자보다 적은 임금을 지급받도록 하고 이러한 차별에 합리적인 이유가 없는 경우
- ‘합리적인 이유가 없는 경우’의 의미 및 합리적인 이유가 있는지 판단하는 방법
- 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권의 단기소멸시효의 기산점이 되는 민법 제766조 제1항의 ‘손해 및 가해자를 안 날’의 의미
Unofficial English translation
• Whether, where an order commencing rehabilitation proceedings has been rendered with respect to the user company, the dispatched worker's right to claim direct employment arising before the order commencing rehabilitation proceedings is extinguished (affirmative)
• Whether the dispatched worker may, once the user company's rehabilitation proceedings are concluded, exercise the right to claim direct employment newly arising from that time (affirmative)
• Where the user company knew or could have known that the dispatched worker and the comparison worker were performing the same kind of work or similar work, yet caused the dispatched worker to receive less wages than the comparison worker by, among other things, being involved in or exercising influence over the determination of the dispatched worker's wages, and there is no reasonable ground for such discrimination
• The meaning of "where there is no reasonable ground" and the method of determining whether there is a reasonable ground
• The meaning of "the day on which the damage and the tortfeasor became known" in Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of a right to claim damages arising from a tort
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2004다37676 판결(공2005하, 1950)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37676 decided November 10, 2005 (Gong 2005 Ha, 1950)
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2004다37676 판결(공2005하, 1950) / [3] 대법원 2020. 5. 14. 선고 2016다239024, 239031, 239048, 239055, 239062 판결(공2020하, 1070) / [4] 대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2003다66066 판결(공2005하, 1939) / [5] 대법원 2002. 6. 28. 선고 2000다22249 판결(공2002하, 1777)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does the dispatched worker retain a direct employment claim against the dispatching agency after the user company's claim is extinguished by the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings?
The remand judgment of the Gangneung Branch on the claim for a declaration of employment will show how the effect of the commencement order is applied to these facts. An amendment to Article 6-2(2) of the former Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers or item (i) of Article 2-2 of its Enforcement Decree, or a later decision on the extinguishment of the claim, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does the dispatched worker retain a direct employment claim against the dispatching agency after the user company's claim is extinguished by the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings?” vs Independent “After clarification of the employer's defense, is the worker entitled to an expression of intent to employ based on a claim newly arising after rehabilitation ended?”
Primary asks whether the worker can claim against the dispatching agency after the user company's claim is extinguished. Independent asks whether the worker can claim employment intent based on a post-rehabilitation claim once the defense is clarified.
사용사업주에 대한 회생절차개시결정이 있는 경우, 회생절차개시결정 전에 발생한 파견근로자의 직접고용청구권이 소멸하는지 여부(적극) 및 파견근로자는 사용사업주의 회생절차가 종결되면 그때부터 새로 발생한 직접고용청구권을 행사할 수 있는지 여부(적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Chuncheon District Court, Gangneung Branch, in its judgment of 12 January 2021 (2020Na30474), held that the plaintiff and Defendant were in a labour dispatch relation in which the plaintiff worked under the defendant's direct direction and supervision, so that from 1 August 2012, when the 2012-amended Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers took effect, the defendant was obliged to declare employment to the plaintiff. It treated the direct employment claim as a property claim arising before the rehabilitation commencement order of 17 October 2013 and therefore a rehabilitation claim, and rejected the defendant's arguments that the suit was improper because the plaintiff had not filed the claim and the rehabilitation plan had been confirmed and lapsed.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that no direct employment claim arises after the commencement order and that a claim arising earlier is extinguished by it, so the court below had to exercise its power to clarify and decide whether the defendant meant to assert that extinction. Because it did neither and failed to examine the point, the judgment on the claim for a declaration of employment was reversed and remanded to the Gangneung Branch. On the wage discrimination, the administrator's continuing discrimination as a new tort, the public interest claim and the limitation period, the Court found no error and dismissed the remaining appeals, treating the comparative negligence argument raised for the first time in the Supreme Court as inadmissible.
Distinguishing conditions
- A dispatch relation in which no commencement of rehabilitation proceedings has been made against the user company, so that nothing extinguishes the claim under Article 6-2(2).
- A direct employment claim arising after the rehabilitation proceedings have ended, since the Court held that the worker may exercise such a claim from that point.
- Wage discrimination where the user company neither knew nor, exercising the care a user company ordinarily exercises, could have known that the workers did the same or similar work.
Record verification notes
Fix the dates before relying on this entry: the date the 2012-amended Act took effect, the date of the rehabilitation commencement order and the date the rehabilitation ended, since the claim is measured against the commencement order. Then test the discrimination claim against the three points the Court named, the content and degree of the disadvantage, the reason for it, and the content, scope, authority and responsibility of the worker's duties. Finally check whether the limitation defence was litigated below, because the Court accepted the lower court's finding that the worker had not recognised the elements of the tort at the dates it examined.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 사용사업주에 대한 회생절차개시결정이 있는 경우, 회생절차개시결정 전에 발생한 파견근로자의 직접고용청구권이 소멸하는지 여부(적극) 및 파견근로자는 사용사업주의 회생절차가 종결되면 그때부터 새로 발생한 직접고용청구권을 행사할 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 법률상 사항에 관한 법원의 석명 또는 지적의무 [3] 사용사업주가 파견근로자와 비교대상 근로자가 같은 종류의 업무 또는 유사한 업무를 수행하고 있음을 알았거나 알 수 있었는데도 파견근로자의 임금을 결정하는 데 관여하거나 영향력을 행사하는 등으로 파견근로자가 비교대상 근로자보다 적은 임금을 지급받도록 하고 이러한 차별에 합리적인 이유가 없는 경우, 사용사업주가 임금 차별에 대한 손해배상책임을 부담하는지 여부(적극) / 이때 ‘합리적인 이유가 없는 경우’의 의미 및 합리적인 이유가 있는지 판단하는 방법 [4] 파견근로자에 대한 차별적 처우를 하여 온 사용사업주에 대하여 회생절차가 개시된 후에도 관리인이 차별적 처우를 계속하는 경우, 관리인의 이러한 불법행위로 인한 파견근로자의 손해배상청구권이 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제179조 제1항 제5호의 공익채권에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [5] 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권의 단기소멸시효의 기산점이 되는 민법 제766조 제1항의 ‘손해 및 가해자를 안 날’의 의미 및 피해자 등이 언제 불법행위의 요건사실을 현실적·구체적으로 인식하였는지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where an order commencing rehabilitation proceedings has been rendered with respect to the user company, the dispatched worker's right to claim direct employment arising before the order commencing rehabilitation proceedings is extinguished (affirmative), and whether the dispatched worker may, once the user company's rehabilitation proceedings are concluded, exercise the right to claim direct employment newly arising from that time (affirmative) [2] The court's duty of clarification or indication with respect to matters of law [3] Whether, where the user company knew or could have known that the dispatched worker and the comparison worker were performing the same kind of work or similar work, yet caused the dispatched worker to receive less wages than the comparison worker by, among other things, being involved in or exercising influence over the determination of the dispatched worker's wages, and there is no reasonable ground for such discrimination, the user company bears liability for damages for the wage discrimination (affirmative) / In this case, the meaning of "where there is no reasonable ground" and the method of determining whether there is a reasonable ground [4] Whether, where rehabilitation proceedings have been commenced against a user company that has engaged in discriminatory treatment of a dispatched worker and the custodian continues the discriminatory treatment even after the commencement of the rehabilitation proceedings, the dispatched worker's right to claim damages arising from such tort of the custodian constitutes a common benefit claim under Article 179 (1) 5 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (affirmative) [5] The meaning of "the day on which the damage and the tortfeasor became known" in Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of a right to claim damages arising from a tort, and the method of determining when the victim, etc. realistically and specifically recognized the facts constituting the tort
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 고용의 의사표시 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 춘천지방법원 강릉지원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed with respect to the claim for a declaration of intent to employ, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gangneung Branch of the Chuncheon District Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 파견근로자보호 등에 관한 법률(2019. 4. 30. 법률 제16413호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제6조의2 제2항, 구 파견근로자보호 등에 관한 법률 시행령(2014. 9. 24. 대통령령 제25630호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조의2 제1호 [2] 민사소송법 제136조 제1항, 제4항 [3] 구 파견근로자보호 등에 관한 법률(2019. 4. 30. 법률 제16413호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제7호, 제21조 제1항, 민법 제393조, 제750조, 제763조 [4] 구 파견근로자보호 등에 관한 법률(2019. 4. 30. 법률 제16413호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제21조 제1항, 민법 제750조, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제179조 제1항 제5호 [5] 민법 제766조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger