Freight Limit on Van-Type Freight Vehicle Operators Case

[20-2(A) KCCR 587, 2007Hun-Ma233, September 25, 2008]

In this case, the Constitutional Court upheld provisions of the Trucking Transport Business Act which requires the weight and volume of freight to be over a certain level when the consignor boards a van-type freight vehicle.

Background of the Case

The Enforcement Regulation of the Trucking Transport Business Act (hereinafter the "Regulation") had a provision limiting the passengers to 3 persons in van-type freight vehicles when the consignor and freight are being transported together. The Regulation also stipulated that the freight per consignor must be 40kg or more in weight and 80,000㎤ or more in volume. On December 16, 2004, the Constitutional Court declared those provisions unconstitutional to the extent that they are applied to those who registered their 6-seat van vehicles as freight shippers prior to November 30, 2001 when such Provisions were not enacted (16-2(B) KCCR 580, 2003Hun-Ma226, December 16, 2004).

However, after the decision of the Constitutional Court was rendered, different regulations were to apply to the van operators depending on the date of registration of van-type freight vehicle transportation business, which caused difficulties in enforcing the law and confusion to the customers. At this, the Freight Limit Provision was mitigated and all van-type freight vehicle operators were subjected to the uniform regulation (hereinafter the "Freight Limit Provision"). In case of violation, administrative sanctions were to be imposed (hereinafter the "Sanction Provision"). Complainants filed a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the Freight Limit Provision and the Sanction Provision are in violation of the Constitution as long as they are applied to the 6-seat van-type freight vehicle operators who registered prior to November 30, 2001.

Summary of Decision

The Constitutional Court, in an unanimous opinion, dismissed the complaint regarding the Sanction Provision, and denied the complaint regarding the Freight Limit Provision. The reasons are as follows.

1. Review on the Sanction Provision

It is not determined yet whether the complainants would be subject to the Sanction Provision for violation of the Freight Limit Provision. Moreover, in that the Sanction Provision prescribes discretionary punishment, infringement of basic rights does occur when the administrative agency actually exercises its discretion for punishment. Therefore the Sanction Provision itself does not directly infringe on the basic rights of the petitioners.

2. Review on the Freight Limit Provision

A. Whether the Provision violates rule against protection of expectation interests

Considering the intention of the Trucking Transport Business Act which differentiates between the freight transportation business and passenger transportation business, legislative purposes, and the definition of freight vehicle transportation business, it is implied that the freight would exceed the weight and volume of baggage. Therefore, the petitioners' claimed expectation that their van-type vehicles may target passengers without baggage as their customers does not grant enough value for protection. In addition, on March 26, 2001, the Minister of Construction and Transportation has already ordered to improve the Terms and Conditions of Transportation to correspond to the Freight Limit Provision, and therefore, it cannot be said that the complainants' expectation was infringed in a wholly unexpected way. In addition, the complainants have enjoyed profit from passenger transportation for the past four years without limitation unlike other van-type vehicle operators (those registered after November 30, 2001), due to the 2003Hun-Ma226 decision of the Constitutional Court. Such length of duration would be enough for protecting the expectation interests of the petitioners under the old

law.

On the other hand, the Freight Limit Provision serves essential public interest of protection of citizens who use the transportation services and establishment of transportation order by adjusting the scope of business for the taxi industry and call van industry in conformance with the purpose of the systems. Especially, after the 2003Hun-Ma226 decision, as problems of discriminatory treatment depending on registration date and confusion to the customers in choosing transportation vehicle have arisen, the public need for standardizing the freight limit has been recognized.

In the 2003Hun-Ma226 decision, not only freight limitation provision but the passenger limit provision was also subject to review and the decision did not recognize violation of protection of expectation interests for those who have registered after the limitation on passenger provision was implemented but before the limitation on freight provision was implemented, and therefore were subject to only the freight limitation. Although the petitioners in this case had registered prior to November 30, 2001 when the limitation on passengers was implemented, they were not subjected to the passenger limit because Article 3 (b) (ii) of the Regulation, newly enacted after the 2003Hun-Ma226 decision, exempted them from the passenger limit. Therefore, they are in different condition from those petitioners of the preceding case who were subjected to both the passenger limit and freight limit. In this regard, the opinion viewing the Freight Limit Provision as not violating the protection of expectation interests does not go against the previous decision of the Court.

In sum, the Freight Limit Provision is not against the principle of protection of expectation interests, and does not infringe on the complainants' freedom of occupation.

B. Whether the Freight Limit Provision infringes right to equality

Taxis are "passenger vehicles" and cannot carry freight in excess of certain weight and volume. In reality, it is hard to expect that taxi operators would prefer transporting freight instead of passengers, who are easier to carry. For this reason, the need to regulate the freight transportation by taxis through law is minimal. Therefore, subjecting

only van-type vehicle operators to the Freight Limit Provision is a reasonable discrimination, and cannot be said to infringe the complainants' right to equality.

C. Whether the Freight Limit Provision goes beyond the delegation set forth by the Trucking Transport Business Act

The weight and volume of 20㎏ and 40,000㎤ specified under the Freight Limit Provision can be seen as "minimum freight", which is differentiated from simple baggage, in that van-type vehicles are being mainly used for transport of freight, not passengers. Thus, compared with baggage standards under the terms and conditions of other public transports, the freight limit under the provision at issue is not overly high or unbalanced in its restriction. Thus, the Freight Limit Provision concretizes the standard of freight in conformance with the legislative purpose of the provision defining the motor vehicle passenger transportation business under the Trucking Transport Business Act. Therefore, it does not go beyond the delegation set forth by the Act.