|
【Main Issues and Holdings】
In a case where a visually impaired person entered an amusement park operated by Company B and attempted to board rides such as T-Express but Company B's employees refused to allow him to ride based on the restrictions for visually impaired persons in the safety guidebook related to the use of the rides, the act of Company B restricting the use of the rides by visually impaired persons in accordance with the abovementioned guidebook constitutes an act of discrimination against persons with disabilities under Articles 4(1)1 and 15(1) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities, Remedy Against Infringement of their Rights, Etc, unless there is a justifiable reason for such discrimination, but in light of the circumstances, establishing that there was a legitimate reason for the above discriminatory behavior of the company is insufficient, the court held that Company B is obliged to pay consolation money to A and others in accordance with the liability for damages stipulated in Article 46(1) of the abovementioned Act, and is obliged to take positive measures to revise the contents of the guidebook to provide the visually impaired with explanations on how to use the rides, facilities, etc. in the amusement park, their safety and risks, and how to escape in case of emergency.
|
