2. The defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger Passenger Co., Ltd., the defendant Seoul High-speed Co., Ltd., and the defendant High-speed Passenger Transport Co., Ltd. shall prevent any of their drivers from refusing to take passengers on board or not engaging in any activity with no stopping place or stopping place, and shall provide education including the method of using wheelchairss.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Pyeongtaek-si is dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger Co., Ltd., Defendant Seoul High-speed Co., Ltd., and Defendant Jinjin Passenger Transport Co., Ltd. is assessed against the Plaintiff, the part arising between Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger Co., Ltd., Defendant Seoul High-speed Passenger Transport Co., Ltd., Defendant Jinjin Passenger Transport

5. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff is a student of ○○ University at 25 years of age, and is a person with a disability in the first degree of brain disease, using an electric wheelchairs. The Plaintiff was willing to take passengers on a bus operated by Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger Co., Ltd., Defendant Seoul High-speed Co., Ltd., Defendant Seoul High-speed Passenger Transport Co., Ltd., and Defendant Jinjin Passenger Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Pung Passenger Co., Ltd.”) as follows.

Defendant Pyeongtaek-si Passenger, etc. is a traffic business entity established for the purpose of each passenger transport business, which is prescribed by Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Act on Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons (hereinafter “the Mobility Disadvantaged Act”), and Defendant Pyeongtaek-si is a traffic administrative agency prescribed by Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Mobility Disadvantaged Act.

(b) Refusal of boarding a bus belonging to the passenger, etc., such as Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger;

From April 10, 2016 to November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was refused to take passengers on the ground of the breakdown of the wheelchairs equipment, the wheeler’s use of the site for the use of the wheelchairs equipment, and the passage through a non-stopping as indicated below (hereinafter referred to as “buser”) from the driver working for the Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “buser”), as indicated in the table below, or took passengers on the part of the Plaintiff without using the wheelchairs equipment.

Defendant evidence 1 on April 10, 2016, at 10: 21:25, Defendant evidence 1, located in the main text, that rejected boarding due to a failure in front of the Pyeongtaek-si Station, Seoul, and Gyeongjin A12 on May 1, 2016, and was unable to use the site prior to the Pyeongtaek-si Station at around 20:45 on May 1, 2016, at around 21:3: Seoul, 4:5 on May 2, 2016, refusing boarding due to a failure in front of the Pyeongtaek 1:4:4:5 on May 4, 2016, Seoul, and at around 19:4:4:20 on May 18, 2016, refusing boarding due to a failure in front of the Pyeongtaek-si University at around 10:6:5 on May 20, 2016, Party A’s rejection of boarding at around 1:6:7:5 on July 25, 2019, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 8 through 10, Gap evidence 12-1, Gap evidence 12-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the video verification on May 26, 2017 by this Court

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Ho-gu Passenger

(1) According to the basic facts, bus engineers working for Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, etc. failed to board the Plaintiff, who is the disabled, on the ground of the breakdown of the wheelchairs boarding equipment, the method of using the wheelchairs boarding equipment, the site for the use of the wheelchairs boarding equipment, and the passage of a non-stopping pass (hereinafter “the act of refusing to board, etc.”) constitutes an act of violating Article 26(1)1 and 6 of the Passenger Transport Services Act, in individual respect of bus engineers, and constitutes an act of violating Article 11 of the Mobility Act and Article 19(1), (2), and (4) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against the Disabled Persons and the Protection of their Rights, Etc. (hereinafter “the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against the Disabled Persons”). This constitutes a discriminatory act of refusing to provide convenience to the disabled persons without justifiable grounds,” as stipulated under Article 4(1)3 of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against the Disabled Persons.

(2) It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff violated the right to move due to the discriminatory act such as the refusal of boarding by the above bus engineers and suffered mental suffering from the failure of boarding due to the main cause of the disability. As such, Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, etc. is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the discriminatory act such as the refusal of boarding by the above bus engineers, who are employees, as the employer of the above bus engineers.

On the other hand, Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, etc. introduced and operated low-floor buses, and provided regular training programs for the bus officers under his/her jurisdiction, including the guidelines for responding to the boarding of the disabled and the operating guidelines for the lifts, etc., and paid considerable attention to the supervision of the business of the bus officers as employers. However, some bus officers did not board the Plaintiff without any negligence when they did not confirm the Plaintiff’s intent of boarding, or did not take the Plaintiff out when they operated the bus in consideration of compliance with the time of boarding and the convenience of the general passengers. Thus, Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, etc. asserted that the liability for damages cannot be extended to Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, etc., but the evidence submitted by Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, etc. (Evidence Nos. 5 and 7) alone is insufficient to acknowledge the defense, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise.

(3) Furthermore, with respect to the amount of damages, considering all the circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as health class, Plaintiff’s age, type and degree of disability, characteristics, relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, and the time, frequency, and degree of discriminatory acts such as refusal of boarding by the said bus engineers, etc., it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff by Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, etc. as KRW 1,00,000 per Defendant Company.

Therefore, Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, etc. is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 2, 2016 to the date of full payment after the final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff as damages for delay from September 2, 2016 to the date of full payment.

(4) Meanwhile, under Article 48(2) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, Defendant Pyeongtaek Passengers, etc. order each of their drivers not to refuse to take passengers on board or refuse to stop bus, stop without stopping or engage in any act against persons with disabilities, and to conduct education including the method of using wheelchairss.

C. Determination on the claim against Defendant Pyeongtaek-si

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the head of Pyeongtaek-si is a transportation authority that provides legitimate convenience necessary to allow the disabled persons to walk and move safely and conveniently by using means of mobility, transportation, etc. on an equal basis with persons without disabilities pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities. However, leaving the bus engineers working in Pyeongtaek-si passenger, etc. neglect to allow the disabled persons to refuse to take passengers, etc. on board constitutes a discriminatory act. Thus, it constitutes a discriminatory act, pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on the Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons, Article 18 of the Ordinance on the Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons, and Article 48(2) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, or pursuant to Article 19(5) of the Act on the Prohibition of

(2) Determination

However, in light of the following facts or circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the bus engineers working in Pyeongtaek-si passenger, etc. refused to take passengers against the disabled person, and Defendant Pyeongtaek-si did not have committed a discriminatory act by neglecting it, and the transportation administrative agency cannot be deemed to have committed a discriminatory act, and only with Article 19(5) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against the Disabled Persons providing that “the transportation business entity shall publicize, educate, support, and supervise the disabled persons not to engage in any discriminatory act as prescribed by this Act.” The claim under the specific substantive law that can immediately seek education on the installation and management of convenient mobility equipment to the Plaintiff immediately with respect to the Defendant Pyeongtaek-si passenger, etc., is not granted, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant Pyeongtaek-si head has neglected the duty provided for in Article 19(5) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against the Disabled Persons. Therefore,

(1) The Mobility Disadvantaged Act provides for the duty of transport business entities to continuously endeavor to observe the installation standards of convenient mobility equipment and to improve services (Article 5), the duty to install and manage convenient mobility equipment in compliance with the installation standards (Article 11), the duty to undergo education on the installation, management, etc. of convenient mobility equipment (Article 13), the duty to provide mobility disadvantaged persons with sufficient time to board and alight buses so that they may use buses safely and conveniently, and the duty to provide convenience to the mobility disadvantaged persons (Article 14(1)) (Article 14). In such cases, the duty to establish and implement a policy on the improvement of convenient mobility equipment and passenger convenience to ensure that the mobility disadvantaged persons can move safely and conveniently as the duty of transportation administrative agencies, and the duty to establish and implement such policy on the improvement of convenient mobility equipment and passenger convenience (Article 4), the duty to establish and implement a transportation convenience plan (Article 6, 7-2, and 7-14) and the duty to examine the actual conditions of the mobility disadvantaged persons to the extent of budget to be established and implemented.

(2) Article 13 (1) of the Mobility Disadvantaged Act provides for the obligation to undergo education on the installation, management, etc. of convenient mobility equipment conducted by a transport business operator by a Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu. Article 13 (2) of the same Act provides for the obligation of a driver operating a special means of transport to undergo education on services for the mobility disadvantaged persons conducted by a Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu. Article 18 (1) of the Ordinance on the Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of the Mobility Disadvantaged Persons entrusted by Article 13 (4) of the same Act provides for the obligation to prepare new and occupational education programs for the enhancement of the transportation convenience of the mobility disadvantaged persons. Article 13 (2) of the same Act provides for the obligation of the transport business operator to undergo education on the installation, management, etc. of convenient mobility equipment, and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Mobility Disadvantaged Persons Act provides for the said obligation to provide education to the transport business operator.

(3) However, Article 19(5) of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against the Disabled Persons provides that "traffic administrative agencies shall promote, educate, support, and supervise transport business operators so that they may not engage in any discriminatory act as prescribed by this Act against the disabled persons." However, the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against the Disabled Persons does not separately stipulate the procedures for seeking the fulfillment of the above obligation or the procedures for remedy in the event of non-performance of the obligation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above provisions alone provide the specific substantive law

④ According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs has already held a meeting of Pyeongtaek-si passengers and other urban bus representatives on February 17, 2016 to analyze the current status of traffic inconvenience reports, such as refusal of passengers and non-stopping, and discussed the future drivers' friendship and safety education, whether the vehicle safety inspection and maintenance, including whether the persons with disabilities will work normally at a regular and occasional level, etc. The defendant Pyeongtaek-si head sent a public notice to submit the results after operating low bus lifts and providing customer service to ordinary passengers on May 9, 2016, and the defendant Pyeongtaek-si head has conducted job training at the Gyeonggi-do Transport Training Institute for Transport and Training from June 13 to 14, 2016.

As to this, even if Defendant Pyeongtaek-si’s head provided the above education in 2016, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Pyeongtaek-si head seeks to carry out education even in 2017, based on Article 18(2) of the Ordinance on the Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons, based on Article 18(2) of the Ordinance on the Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons, but the said Ordinance is merely a provision on the duty of new employees of the Special Means of Transportation and the Mobile Support Center.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger Co., Ltd., the defendant Seoul High-speed Co., Ltd., and the defendant Jinjin Passenger Co., Ltd. is justified, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Pyeongtaek-si Co., Ltd. is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Level of judge;

1) The buses No. 80 are loaded by Defendant Pyeongtaek Passenger, and the buses No. 20 are jointly loaded by Defendant Seoul High-speed and Sick Passenger, the buses No. 7-1 are loaded by Defendant Seoul High-speed, and the buses No. 1-1 are loaded by Defendant Sick Passenger.