메뉴 건너뛰기
소속 기관 / 학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
고객센터 ENG
주제분류

논문 기본 정보

저자정보
(강원대학교)
저널정보
노동법이론실무학회 노동법포럼 노동법포럼 제45호
오류 신고하기

피인용 0

검색

    초록·키워드

    This article examines the application of he Doctrine of Estoppel by Acquiescence (i.e., forfeiture due to prolonged inaction) to lawsuits involving agency workers’ claims regarding their status as employees vis-à-vis the hirer under the Act on the Protection of Agency Workers. Focusing on Supreme Court Decision 2024Da269143, the paper critically analyzes whether it is justifiable to apply such a principle to rights that are inherently tied to structural protections for vulnerable workers. It highlights the divergent interpretations between the appellate court and the Supreme Court, particularly regarding the duration of inaction and the formation of the employer’s legitimate expectations.
    The study emphasizes that the right to claim direct employment or to confirm one’s employee status functions not merely as a private entitlement but also as a public mechanism for redressing disguised forms of employment. Accordingly, the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence should be applied with great caution. The article concludes by identifying the limits of judicial discretion in applying this doctrine and suggests interpretive guidelines for future adjudication.

    최근 본 자료 전체보기

      UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-25-02-093628864