韓國育兒制度之初探──以雇主端補助措施為中心

在少子女化與缺工並行的情勢下，育兒法制之觀察重點不能只放在勞工是否享有相關權利，還須追問企業承接人力缺口與組織成本時，國家如何分擔。本文以我國2026年制度為比較基準：自2026年1月1日起，我國除將未滿三十日之育嬰留職停薪開放按日申請外，亦對僱用未滿三十人之雇主，按受僱者使用日數提供每日新臺幣一千元之定額獎勵。此措施雖使我國不再是全無雇主端支持，卻未要求雇主實際增僱替代人力、指定業務分擔者或將獎勵轉付同儕，故其性質仍與特定成本相連結之補助有別。韓國雇主端支援亦非均以實際支出為要件：雇主准予勞工使用育嬰留職停薪或育兒期縮短工時達三十日以上時，已有按使用月數計算、並原則上以復職後繼續僱用作為後段給付條件之一般准予型支援。本文基於企業實際承接成本如何被辨識之問題意識，主要整理韓國在此一般支援之外所設之替代人力支援金與業務分擔支援金。前者處理外部補位成本，後者處理內部分工成本，並自2026年7月1日起擴及連續二十日之配偶分娩假；本文所稱「雙軌支援」，專指後二項成本型措施。本文指出，韓國制度最值得觀察之處，不只在補助項目或金額，而在於其分層處理一般准予與特定承接成本，並就後者以新僱、正式指定與實際補償等要件，使企業端成本成為可供行政查核之事實。惟官方評估亦顯示，制度仍有認知不足、金額適足性與企業利用能力等問題，呈現「制度存在與制度可用之落差」。因此，台韓比較的真正問題已由「有無補助」轉為：不同補助究竟以制度使用、留任或實際成本何者為要件，是否易於使用，以及其財源與行政負擔是否公平。

Amid declining fertility and persistent labor shortages, childcare legislation must address not only employee rights but also how the state shares the staffing and organizational costs borne by employers. This article takes Taiwan's framework in force in 2026 as its comparative baseline. Since 1 January 2026, Taiwan has permitted parental leave of fewer than thirty days to be taken on a daily basis and has granted employers with fewer than thirty employees a flat NT$1,000 award for each day used. Because the award is not conditioned on hiring a substitute, formally designating a co-worker, or passing compensation on to that co-worker, it remains distinct from a subsidy tied to a specific cost. South Korea's employer-side support is likewise not uniformly conditioned on actual expenditure. An employer in a priority support enterprise that permits at least thirty days of parental leave or reduced working hours for childcare may receive a general allowance for granting leave, calculated by months of use, with half ordinarily withheld until the worker remains insured for six months after the leave ends. The article focuses on two additional cost-linked measures: the substitute-worker subsidy for external replacement and the work-sharing subsidy for internal redistribution, the latter having covered twenty consecutive days of spousal childbirth leave since 1 July 2026.“Dual-track support”in this article refers only to these two cost-linked measures. South Korea's principal comparative significance therefore lies in its layered treatment of general permission and specific staffing costs and, for the latter, in its use of hiring, formal designation, and actual-payment requirements to make employer-side costs administratively verifiable. Official evaluations nevertheless reveal limited awareness, uncertainty over benefit adequacy, and uneven organizational capacity to use the schemes, exposing a gap between formal availability and practical usability. The relevant question for Taiwan is no longer merely whether employer support exists, but whether a benefit is conditioned on leave use, post-return retention, or actual costs, remains accessible in practice, and distributes financing and administrative burdens fairly.