| 英文摘要 |
The practical controversy regarding the characterization of labor contracts in Taiwan, particularly after J. Y. Interpretation No. 740, has further added disputes regarding the criteria for determining contract characterization based on features such as piece-rate payment and assumption of business risks. This article begins with the analysis of the elements of a contract for work by explaining the principal obligation of“labor remuneration.”It states that the object of a contract for work is the“completion of specific work,”whereas a contract for employment involves the“provision of non-specific labor.”The contractor is only responsible for the results, and while the proprietor may have the power to give directions, it should be limited to“object-oriented and result-oriented matters.”This observation not only highlights the distinction between the proprietor’s directions and the employer’s instructions but also confirms the rationale for inherent supervisory powers in an employment contract. This paper attempts to redefine the distinction between service and labor contracts, shifting away from starting with the characteristic of subordination but ultimately circling back to it. Notably, after Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 740 was announced, the Labor Standards Act explicitly includes“subordination”in its definition of a labor contract, making it a legal requirement for contract determination, overriding other characteristics like piece-rate payment or absence of agreed base salary. |
