현대 산업재해보상과 근로자 간 차별적인 대우에 관한 법적 검토: 헌법재판소 2013. 9. 26. 선고 2012헌가16 결정례와 헌법재판소 2016. 9. 29. 선고 2014헌바254 결정례의 평석을 겸하여

The recognition of human rights should not remain a mere speculative affair – for it is only reasonable that judicial, legislative, and administrative agencies seek channels to respect and guarantee universal rights. In the task of enforcing human rights within domestic realms, international human rights standards may certainly intertwine with domestic legal norms. The effort to understand the dynamics between universal standards and domestic law is, therefore, of theoretical and practical significance in today's growing interest in international human rights norms. This study attempts to capture the relationship between international standards of human rights and domestic law by conducting a legal review of modern industrial accident compensation and discriminatory treatment among workers. The right to receive compensation for industrial accidents aligns with the principle of the welfare state and basic rights, ensuring that workers maintain a basic standard of living. The UN and ILO also contributed to the expansion of workers' rights by establishing a series of international standards that recognize such compensations as human rights. However, the introduction of international standards into domestic rule of law has faced hardships, with two Constitutional Court decisions being rendered before guaranteeing compensation for commuting accidents under domestic law. The aim of deciphering the encounter between international norms and the legal interpretation of the Constitutional Court is a timely goal in reviewing the contemporary development of human rights. Specifically, this study first attempts to clearly outline the relationship between industrial accident compensation and workers’ human rights through historical analysis. Furthermore, this study offers a detailed analysis of UN and ILO standards on industrial accident compensation and discriminatory treatment by scrutinizing the contents of the ICESCR, ILO Social Security Convention No. 102, Employment Injury Benefits Convention No. 121, and Employment Injury Benefits Recommendation No. 121. In addition, this study examines the status of ratification of the standards laid out by the UN and ILO and proceeds to review Constitutional Court Decision 2012Hun-Ga16 and 2014Hun-Ba254. The two decisions, while rendered only three years apart, issued different judgments regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 37, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, Item Da of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act – which excluded lawful compensation for accidents resulting from “usual commuting methods.” This study reinterprets the decisions from the perspective of human rights by evaluating conflicting views on the purpose of industrial accident compensation insurance and the infringement of rights to equality. Finally, this study analyzes the revised legislation ratified after 2014Hu-Ba254 and its policy impact, giving attention to the continuation of legal conflicts to secure workers' rights. As such, this study – which comprehensively explores the international standards set by the UN and ILO and the legal interpretations arising from the Constitutional Court – aligns with contemporary human rights studies to investigate the interaction of international and domestic legal norms.