위약 예정의 금지와 그 적용 — 대학의 의무근무기간과 지원비 2배 환수규정의 문제점을 중심으로 —

초록

This study aims to reinterpret the principle of prohibiting the determination of liquidated damages as stipulated in Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act from a modern perspective and to analyze the legal validity of regulations concerning mandatory service periods and research fund reimbursement for university faculty members on sabbatical leave. Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act strictly prohibits employers from entering into contracts that predetermine penalties or damages for non-performance of labor contracts to guarantee workers' freedom to resign and prevent forced labor. Regarding the reimbursement of training expenses, the Supreme Court exceptionally recognizes the validity of such agreements only when the expenses are deemed to have been paid by the employer on behalf of the worker for costs the worker should have borne alone or jointly, considering the worker's voluntary will and interests. Furthermore, the mandatory service period and the amount to be reimbursed must be reasonable and not unduly compel continued labor against the worker's will. As new forms of disputes involving the reimbursement of research funds or signing bonuses emerge, there is a growing need to generalize existing legal principles. These generalized principles can be summarized into two criteria: the “objective existence of a reimbursement obligation” and the “reasonableness of the period for waiver of such obligation.” Given the inherent imbalance of power between individual workers and employers, a strict judgment must be made based on objective factors regarding whether the costs are of a nature to be borne by the worker and whether the service period and reimbursement amount are reasonable. Applying these principles to the university’s research fund reimbursement regulations reveals several legal flaws. The regulations set a mandatory service period of three times the duration of the sabbatical and require the reimbursement of up to double the research funds if the requirement is not met. Considering that research during a sabbatical strengthens faculty expertise and contributes to the university's development through the submission of research outputs, such funds are difficult to classify as “costs that the worker should exclusively or jointly bear.” Therefore, the existence of a reimbursement obligation is difficult to justify. Even if acknowledged, a mandatory service period triple the research period is excessively long compared to other legislations, and the penalty of double the amount lacks proportionality. In conclusion, the practice of mandating a service period three times the sabbatical duration and stipulating a double reimbursement amount constitutes a prohibited predetermination of liquidated damages under Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act, and is therefore null and void.

키워드