영국 사내하도급.파견현황 및 제도

industry in the world. The industry is regulated under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the Conduct of Employment Agencies, and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 and the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. The Court of Appeal had dealt with not a few cases such as Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd, Bunce v Postworth Ltd(t/a Skyblue), and Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd. In those cases, the Court of Appeal had taken negative attitude against employment concept between agency workers and agencies or end users. But, in the Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagy case, the Court of Appeal adopted sham transaction theory positively casting away the rigid standard. After that, the Court of Appeal declared that there was 'employment' between agency worker and agency(James v Greenwich LBC case) or between agency worker and end-user(Cable & Wireless Plc v Muscat case). This legal tendency on the agency worker in UK is very similar to that of Korea. The Korea Supreme Court also showed a practical criteria for judging between genuine subcontract and sham subcontract and presented a helpful criteria for distinguishing the implied contract of employment from the illegal dispatch employment. But there is a big difference between the two countries about the frame work of the agency industry. The UK puts no limitation on the scope of agency work, while Korea puts stiff restriction on using agency work in the manufacturing industry. Since this difference comes from the different economical surroundings and policies, whether Korea could adopt the UK's legal frame may depend on the Korea's economical surroundings and policies.