The Claim of Agency Workers’ Rights Regarding Their Employee Status vis-à-vis the Hirer and the Doctrine of Estoppel by Acquiescence: Focused on Supreme Court Decision 2024Da269143

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.<br/> 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.