건설하도급에서의 근로자 임금 보호제도에 대한 재검토

Many regulations to protect workers’ claims of wage are said to be established in terms of social policy to guarantee construction workers’ minimum standards of living, based on that Korea’s construction sites are composed layered and layered. But in spite of many kinds of institutional strategy, workers’ claims of wage are very much often not protected due to absence or insufficiency of regulation so that systematic complement is essential now. The most controversial issue in construction sites’ structure of employment is whether personal separate contractor called ‘Oyaji’ is worker or not. Oyaji is not a construction business operator on Construction Business Act so that he cannot participate as a subcontractor. In addition, he is not likely to be seen as a business owner because he just provides labor with a few workers. Actually, many evils such as delay in payment of wages and so on are attending Oyaji. Nevertheless, approving Oyaji as a business owner can incapacitate the applicable rules by admitting illegal subcontractors, which results in turning away from protecting workers. So it is essential to make it clear on the law that who is not a construction business operator on Construction Business Act cannot be a business owner. And it is proper that in case Oyaji employs and instructs workers within his own responsibility and takes profit of remaining at which workers’ wage is deducted, Oyaji is regarded as a user(who works for a owner) and given a double status as a worker and a user. If things come to this stage, a legal business owner on Construction Business Act is given a user’s status which makes him a wage payment obligator so that harmful consequences are corrected. In addition, problems about regulating joint liability on wage payment questions about construction workers’ eligibility to receive substitute payment and can be solved too so that workers can be protected effectively. About prohibition of seizure on cost of construction- the equivalent of wages-, it should be made clear that even though cost of construction is completely seized, workers’ wage cannot be seized. And it should be the same case as upper constructor or launcher’s subcontract cost. To sum up, workers’ claim of wage is often not protected in spite of many regulations for worker protection. So, to protect their claims of wage which is the main source of living, the regulations should be supplemented to protect them effectively in consideration of social policy.