【Main Issues and Holdings】
[1] In a case where public institutions that provide special transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged treat persons with disabilities unfavorably on account of disabilities without reasonable grounds in the manner of restriction, exclusion, separation, or refusal, whether such acts constitute discrimination prohibited in the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities and Remedy Against Infringement of Their Rights (affirmative in principle)
Method for determining the existence of justifiable reasons that deem such acts as nondiscriminatory, such as excessive burden or undue hardship
[2] In a case where: (a) the Seoul Facilities Corporation, which operates accessible taxies for persons with disabilities, set forth an advisory standard mandating that persons with developmental disabilities should be seated in the second row in the rear passenger-side seat, not next to the driver’s seat, and their custodians be seated in the rear driver-side seat (hereinafter “restrictive standards”); (b) the National Human Rights Commission issued an advisory decision, pursuant to Article 44(1)1 of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea Act, to modify the said restrictive standards by lifting off the restrictions on persons with disabilities on the basis of developmental disabilities from seating next to the driver’s seat when taking accessible taxies; and (c) the Seoul Facilities Corporation sought revocation of the advisory decision, the case affirming the lower court’s judgment that considered the above restrictions as discrimination under Article 4(1) and Article 26 of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities and Remedy Against Infringement of Their Rights