「근로기준법」 제23조 제1항의 강행규정성 문제 (부당해고 무효법리의 근거 문제 2)

The basic problem consciousness of this thesis is that in order to systemize the law of wrongful discharges in Korea, it is necessary to overcome the invalidity theory of legal acts in violation of compulsory provisions and switch to invalidity theory of legal acts in violation of the social order of Article 103 of the Civil Code. The invalidity theory of legal acts in violation of compulsory provisions is from Japanese legal practices, which is conceptually confusing and weak in legal grounds. The invalidity theory of legal acts in violation of the compulsory provisions is based on Article 105 of the Civil Code. The so-called Civil Code Article 105 Basis Theory has formal logic problems. In order to clarify this point, this study analyzed the plural meanings of the compulsory provision concept and the formal logic problems of Civil Code Article 105 Baisis Theory. In Article 23 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, the concept of compulsory provision has three meanings. The the first meaning of the concept relates whether the contract parties can exclude Article 23 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, the second meaning, whether the labor contract which violates Article 23 (1) of the Act, can be valid, the third meaning, whether the discharge which violates Article 23 (1) of the Act is valid in civil law. The compulsory provision character of Article 23 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, in the first meaning of the concept, is recognized because of minimum standard character of labor standards which is found in the preceding section of Article 3 of the Labor Standards Act. The compulsory character of Article 23 (1), in the second meaning of the concept, recognized because of Article 15 (1) of the Act. In the third meaning of the concept, which is the core issue, the compulsory character of Article 23 (1) has been recognized based on the invalidity theory of legal acts in violation of the compulsory provisions. The argument of this paper is that the ground should be switched to the invalidity theory of legal acts in violation of the social order of the Civil Code Article 103. In relation to the issues of second and third meanings of compulsory provision concept, it was also analyzed that the so-called ‘Civil Code Article 105 Baisis Theory’, which is premised on the invalidity of legal acts in violation of the compulsory provisions, is unacceptable due to the problems of the opposite interpretation and the over-interpretation. Arguments that complement the ground of Civil Code Article 105 Baisis Theory, the necessity of coordinating with the law of illegal causal benefits, the narrowness of the concept of social order and invalidity of Article 103 of the Civil Code, and the principle of prohibition of legal contradictions are argued to be not convincing.