All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2024Da207923 Decided September 25, 2025 【Cessation of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities, etc.】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Even if any act does not fall under the specific discriminatory acts outlined in the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities and Remedy Against Infringement of their Rights, whether such act can be considered discriminatory under the more general or higher-level provisions (affirmative) and whether any service can be excluded from the application of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities and Remedy Against Infringement of their Rights on the grounds that it is included in services with restricted target users, such as special means of transportation (negative) [2] In a case where Party A, as a person with a severe upper limb impairment and a mild lower limb impairment, qualifies as a person with a “walking disability” under Article 28 of the Enforcement Rules of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities; however, Public Corporation C, which was entrusted with the management and operation of the call taxi for the persons with disabilities, which is a special means of transportation, under Article 2 Subparag. 8 of the Act on Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons from the head of Local Government B, refused Party A’s application to use the call taxi for the persons with disabilities, arguing that Party A did not meet the criteria of a person under Articles 6(1)1 of the former Enforcement Rules of the Act on Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons; with regard to Party A’s complaint filed in response thereto, the relevant public official from Local Government B also rejected Party A’s complaint for the same reasons, the case holding that the provision of a service regarding the call taxi for the persons with disabilities, which is a special means of transportation of Local Government B falls under the provision of services necessary for persons with disabilities as defined in Article 26(1) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities and Remedy Against Infringement of their Rights, and thus, the judgment of the lower court, which viewed that the above refusal by Local Government B and its public officials is deemed a discriminatory act committed in violation of Articles 4(1)3 and Article 26(1) of the same Act, is acceptable | |
